Skip to main content

Full text of "Arizona Strip District economic profile supplement"

See other formats


-±o gfoitn^si 



l(,Q 



ARIZONA STRIP 
DISTRICT ECONOMIC SUPPLEMENT 



2^ 



7 



3#&B~ 









Bureau of Land Management 

Library 

Denver Service Center 



& 



*%£& 



fg&&^ 



$ 



# 



3TcJ 









«!* 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Section Page 

I . Introduction 1 

A. Purpose 1 

B. Analytical Areas 1 

II. District Economy 4 

A. Population 4 

B. Income 13 

C. Employment 22 

D. Industries 34 

1. Agriculture 34 

2. Mining 43 

3. Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 51 

4. Forestry 71 

III. Public Land Resources 74 

A. Livestock Forage 75 

1. Monetary Value of Livestock Grazing to BLM 75 

2. Dependence of Permittees on BLM Forage 75 

3. Dependence of Livestock Industry on BLM 

Forage 75 

4. Monetary Value of BLM Forage to Livestock 
Industry 76 

5. Monetary Value of BLM Forage to Local 
Community 76 

6. Dependence of Local Community on BLM Forage 76 

7. Benchmark Projections 76 

Rs 8lM LIBRARY 
DSNVFd ^ BtDG zn Bureau of Land Management 

%" f EDEhai re! Library 

OEM VpS° X 25047 TERi 
*' CO 80225 



.# 






I# 



Pa&e 

B. Recreation 78 

1. Deer Hunting 78 

a. Dependence of Deer Hunters on BLM 

Deer Habitat 78 

b. Monetary Value of BLM-Based Deer 

Hunting to Hunters 78 

c. Monetary Value of BLM-Based Deer 

Hunting to Local Community 78 

d. Dependence of Local Communities on BLM- 
Based Deer Hunting 79 

e. Benchmark Projections 79 

2. Other Big Game Hunting 80 

3. Upland Game Birds and Small Game Hunting 80 

4. General Recreation (Non-Hunting Outdoor 
Recreation Activities) 81 

a. Present Recreation Use 81 

b Monetary Value of BLM Based Recreation 

to Users 82 

c. Monetary Value of BLM Based Recreation 

to Local Community 83 

d. Dependence of Recreationists on BLM 

Lands 83 

e. Benchmark Projections 83 

C. Minerals 86 

1. Monetary Values of BLM Sand and Gravel to 

BLM and Initial Users 86 

2. Dependence of Industry on BLM Sand & Gravel 87 

3. Monetary Value of BLM Sand and Gravel to 

Local Community 87 

4. Benchmark Projections 88 



1 1 



r 












p aR e 

D. Timber and Other Woodland Products 88 

1. Monetary Value of BLM Woodland Products to 

BLM and Initial Users 89 

2. Dependence of Industry on BLM Wood Products 89 

3. Monetary Value of BLM Wood Products to the 
Local Community 90 

4. Benchmark Projections 90 

E. Water (Reserved) 

F. Summary 91 

G. Conclusion 98 

TABLES : 

I. Population Densities 1960, 1970, and 1980 Projected 4 

II. Population and Percent Distribution for Four County 

Region with 1980 Projections 5 

III Kane and Washington County Population Migration and 

Estimated Natural Increase L960-Fiscal 1 ( )6 ( ) 10 

IV. Percentage of Population by Broad Age Groups 12 

V. Personal Income for Four-County Region 15 

VI. Disposable Personal Income Estimates for 1969 and 

Percent Households by Cash Income Groups 17 

VII. Sources of Personal Income I960 and 1968 20 

Vlll. Percent Personal Income from Major Industry Groups 

1960-68 21 

IX. Percent of Total Employment in Major Industries 23 

X. Economic Activities of Kane County 25 

XI. St. George Area Total Employment and Export 

Oriented Employment, Classified by Industry 1960 28 



in 



r 



* 



TABLES: (Cont'd.) Page 

XII. Classification of Vehicles in St. George, Utah Area 30 

XIII. Employment by Industry (Page and Fredonia) 33 

XIV. Value of Farm Products Sold 1959 and 1964 35 

XV. Ranch Income and Expense Summary by Size of Ranch, 

Arizona Strip, BLM, Forest and Private Range 37 

XVI. Statistical Region Livestock Operations on BLM Land 38 

XVII. Value of Minerals Produced, Kane County 44 

XVI I I . Potential Economic Impact of Kaiparowits Project 47 

XVI X. Value of Minerals Produced, Washington County 49 

XX. Visitor Attendance at Kane County's Major Attractions 52 

XXI. Relationship between Income Class and Preference in 

each Type of Accommodation 64 

XXII. Preferred Accommodations and Actual Accommodations 
Used By Out-of-State Visitors to Utah 65 

XXIII. Participation in Outdoor Recreation Activities By 
Visitors Coming to Utah 66 

XXIV. Visitors Engaging in Each Outdoor Activity Classi- 
fied by Proportion Using Elected Types of 

Accommodations 67 

XXV. Relationship Between Party Expenditure and Type 

of Outdoor Recreation Activity 68 

XXVI. Yearly Family Income 69 

XXVII. Recreation Potential Appraisal Washington County, 

Utah 70 

XXVIII. Total Forest Products From Public Lands - 1970 71 

XXIX. Traffic Counters 82 

XXX. Ten-Year Forecast of Visits to Reporting Areas of 

the National Park and Forest Service 85 

XXXI. 1970 Woodland Products Harvested 89 



IV 



C 



C 



: 



^ 



* 



FOUR COUNTY REGION MAP 



■ dixie national forest 



/*$K bryce canyon 



WASI+UNGTON 
shivwits^r" 

indiarires'-- * stgeorge 



> 



glen canyon 

national 
recreation 
UTAH area 

page ARIZONA 




n 

tiona 
park 



'Colorado river 



9 



a. north of the Colorado river 



VI 



C 



: 









ILLUSTRATIONS Page 

1. Utah Parks 53 

2. 24 Ways to Discover the Real Utah 54 

3. Washington County 61 

4. District Summary of Resource, Consumption and 
Needs: Present and Projected 99 

5. District Summary of Unit Values of Public Land 
Resources to BLM, Initial Users, and Local 
Communities 101 

6. Monetary Values of Public Land Resources to 

BLM, Initial Users and Local Communities 102 

7. Dependence of Industries/Initial Users and 

Local Communities on BLM Resources 103 

G RAPHS 

1. Kane County Projected Employment and Population 

Based on Various Levels of Economic Development 7 



MAPS 



1. Four County Region Map 



APPENDICES 



vi 



2. Kane County Recreation and Transportation 

Facilities 58 



A. Monetary Value of BLM Forage to Local Communi- 
ties and Dependence of Industry and Community 

on BLM Forage 104 

B. Monetary Value of BLM-Based Deer Hunting to 

Local Community 106 



I . Introduction 

A. Purpose 

The District Economic Supplement provides an in depth 
analysis of the District and local economics, together 
with an examination of BLM resources and their impact 
on the various economic sectors in relation to present 
and projected needs. It provides the District with an 
economic guide to facilitate sound decision making in 
determining the best use of natural resources consistent 
with established BLM objectives. 

B. Analytical Areas 

The Arizona Strip District Office located in St. George, 
Utah administers public land in Coconino and Mohave 
Counties north of the Colorado River. For the purpose 
of this analysis, this area known as the Arizona Strip 
and bordered by Utah to the north will be called the 
Arizona Strip Pi stri ct Stat i stical R egi on . Sec map on 
page vi for a detailed overview. 

An analysis of this region draws heavily on basic social 
and economic data from Kane and Washington Counties located 
north of the State Line in Southern Utah. Use of pertinent 
data from this area is necessary due to the fact that Grand 
and Marble Canyon chasms along the Colorado River and poor 
roads have served to isolate this region from important trade 






r 



and cultural center of Coconino and Mohave Counties. 
Thus, this area developed from the north where there 
were no physical barriers to penetration and subsequent 
colonization. 

Brigham Young, the Mormon spiritual leader, sent pioneers 
down into Southern Utah during the 1850' s and I860 1 s to 
colonize and secure the area for his church. It was 
natural that in time this colonization extended across 
the border into Arizona Strip country. 

Through this early Mormon colonization, the people have 
developed a common cultural and religious bond which has 
served to make them look upon Southern Utah as the hub 
for most business and cultural activities. This situation 
holds true today inasmuch as most economic activities 
conducted on the Arizona Strip are channelized through 
Southern Utah trade centers. 



Where possible basic social and economic data from 
Coconino and Mohave Counties are used, however, selected 
to avoid misleading the reader with facts that may best 
be pertinent to Kane and Washington Counties in presenting 
a more factual picture. 

To adequately examine the local economic situation two 
community impact areas are designated. They are Kane 



' 



.J 



Count y including Coconino County north of the Colorado 
River, and Washington Cou nty , including Mohave County 
north of the Colorado River. These two areas are geo- 
graphic units which correspond to the concept of trade 
areas. Each has a principal trade center where a 
significant proportion of business activity is 
conducted. They are used to measure the economic 
impact of BLM resources on the local economy. 



St. George is the principal trade center for Washigton 
County. I i also serves ns the Washington County seat, 

and leading trade center for the entire jour' county 
region north of the Colorado River. 

Kfn^b, about one- fifth the size of St. George, is the 
principal trade center for Kane County. It is also 
the County seat for Kane County. 

During the past ten years, some business activity has 
shifted from Kanab to Page, east of the Colorado River, 
The sectors affected and magnitude of this shift have 
not been identified or measured. 



Mesquite, Nevada receives a measure of economic activity 
from Mohave County, but again the magnitude of activity 
is not known, but thought to be negligible. 



* 



* 



V 



II. District Economy 
A. Population 

The Arizona Strip District Statistical Region encompasses 
about 7% of the total State area, and only 0.1% of the 
State's population. When it's population per square 
mile is compared to that of Coconino and Mohave Counties 
it is still very low. See Table I. 



Table I 



Population Densities 1960, 1970 and 1980 Projected 



1/ 





Area 


Square Mil 
Land Area 


es 


1960 


1970 


1980 2V 




Coconino Co. 


18,562 




2.26 


2.55 


4.19 


' 


Mohave Co. 


13,227 




.59 


1.90 


3.20 




Statisical 
Region 


7,969 




.13 


.23 


.41 




State 


113,562 




11.46 


15.43 


20.97 



1/ Bureau of the Census. 

2/ Employment Security Commission of Arizona - best projects. 

The District Statistical Region gained almost 68% in 
population between 1960 and 1970. An 80.6% increase in 
population is projected through 1980. See Table II. 



During the past de-cade, Coconino and Mohave Counties 
recorded significant population gains south of the 
Colorado River. See Table 11. These increases have 
little bearing on this analysis and are only used for 
iiT erence . 



* 



Tabic 11 
Population and Percent Distribution for 
Four County Region with 1980 Projections - 



— 3/ 

Per Percent Population Distribution 

Cent 3/ I960 1969 

A rea 1960 1970 Change 1980 " Urban Rural Urban Rural 

Coconino 

Co. 41,857 47,355 13.1 77,750 53.5 46.5 73.8 26.2 

Mohave 

Co. 7,736 25,110 224.6 42,300 52.3 47.7 78.4 21.6 

Stat. 

Region 1,<)72 l,KOO 67.9 3,250 ion. 00 100.0 

S tate 1,30 2, 361 1 ,7 52,122 __3_4_. 6 2 ,381,8 50 75.2 24.8 81.4 18. 6 



Kane 2,667 2,318 -13.1 3,200^ - 100.0 ^ 100.00 ^ 
Co. 

-hashing- <-.,/ 8/ . 

10,271 13,669 33.1 1 5 ,036 5/ 49. 9 50.1 ^ 51.9" 48.18/ 



Ton Co, 



1/ Bureau of the Census. 

2/ Unemployment Compensation Division of Arizona Security Commission. 

3/ Employment Security Commission of Arizona - best projections. 

4/ PRA - Planning and Research Associates 1969 - based on moderate development 

5/ Population Projections - J. Rasmussen et al 1967« 

6/ U. S. Census 1960. 

7/ U. S. Census 1970 projected. 

8/ U. S. Census 1970. 



> 



More relevant are population changes in the two 
community impact areas of Kane and Washington 
Counties. Since 1930, Kane County's population 
has "Seesawed 11 up and down alternate decades. The 
last, a low decade, Kane County experienced a 
decline of over 1 3Z in population due in large 
part to a widely fluctuating employment market. 
The Glen Canyon Dam Project, the movie and tourist 
industries have all contributed to this employment 
situation. 



; 



• 



w 



» 



Population projections through 1980 will depend on 
industrial development in the county. See Graph I, 



(000) 
25 



20 



15 



10 



Graph 1 
Kane County Projected Employment and Population 
Based on Various Levels of Economic Development 



c 

u 
<u 

o 

£3 

e 

3 



/ 



7 1 



I L 






/ 



/ 



Year 1965 

Assuming : 



1970 



1975 



1980 1985 1980 
E mpl o yment Popu la t i on 



1. No Development 

2. Mode rage Development . ._ _ 

3. Maximum Development . — 

Source: Population and Economic Base Study, ^ane County, Utah 

PRS Planning and Research Association 1965. 



c 



; 



' 






> 



If the Kaiparowiis Coal Project goes, Kane County's 
population could grow to 18,500, by 1980. See Graph I. The 
University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business 
Research projects a much higher total figure of 
20-25,000 population increase but assumes that 
approximately half of these people will live in 
Page, Arizona. — With moderate industrial development 
Kane County could increase its population to 3,200 
people by 1980 or a 38.1% increase over the 1970 census 
level. These figures represent a greater increase in 
population than for any decade since 1880. With no 
development, a small decrease of 5% in population may 
be realized. 

With the power transmission line proposal a possible 
reality, bringing much needed winter employment to 
the area, population could grow to a limited extent 
some where between moderate and no development levels. 

Since 189 >, Washington County has slowly but steadily 

grown in population. It grew 33.1% over the last 

decade principally through an almost 40% increase of 

population in St. George. This increase in population 

compares very favorably with the State's increase of 
19% over the same period. 

1/ Population projections, Utah and Utah's Counties. J. J. 

Rasmussen et al. Bureau of Economic and Business Research. 
University of Utah 1967. 

8 



: 









A 1% per year increase in population is projected 

u 

through the year 2000. " The population could grow 
to over 15,000 people based on 1970 population 
figures, through 1980. 

Urban population lias grown at a faster rate than 
rural. See Table II. Washington County now has a 
greater percentage of people living in urban 
communities than rural. This trend is likely 
to continue over the next decade due to a move- 
ment of people to the St. George area where higher 
salaries are paid and more services are available. 
Kane County and the District Statistical Region 
area are still classified as rural in character. 

Basically population migration for both counties 
is not high due to the cultural and religious ties 
of the people. Most are willing to do most anything 
just to remain in the respective counties. Despite 
over 13% unemployment in Kane County in 1969, only 
26 people migrated out. See Table 111. 



21 Ibid 



\ 






Table 111 
Kane and Washington County Population 
Migration and Estimated Natural Increase 1960 - Fiscal 1969 



1/ 



• 



Population 

Estimate Average Out 

Natural Without Net Out Migration 

Year Count y Populat ion In creas es M igra t ion Migration Per Year 



1960 Kane 2,667 
Wash. 10,271 




83 2 
^L,]34 


3,131 
11,970 


464 
1,699 


46 
170 




1965 Kane 2,600 
Wash. 10,500 


17 


37 
177 


2,637 
10 2 577 


37 
77 


37 

77 





1969 Kane 2,500 



2/ 
2/ 



_Was lu \2± 3 00_^ 



35 2/ 12,526 

188 2/ 12,559 



26^ 
259 3/ 



1/ Washington i* Kane Co. - an economic profile (each respective). Bureau 
of Economic and Business Research, University of Utah 1967. 

2/ Preliminary, 1969. 

3/ Provisional; Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Unvi . of Utah 1969, 



10 






< 



Careful analysis of Table IV below reveals that in 
Kane County, the percent of people in the 45 and older 
age bracket increased 4% over the past twenty years. This 
trend is typical for rural America as more and more young 
people leave for large urban- metropolitan centers where 
life is easier and wages are more attrative. Washington 
County followed over the 1950-60 period but reversed this 
trend during the past decade. 

In studying the under 44 age groups in Washington 
County, only the 15- 24 age bracket reflects upward 
gains over the 1960 level. The 25-44 age groups 
declined but at a decreasing rate. This seems to 
indicate more young people are staying and making 
their homes in Washington County. Two plausible 
reasons may account for this shift - additional 
educational opportunities with the expansion of 
Dixie College and industrial expansion in St. George. 



1 1 









i 



Table IV 



Percentage of Population by Broad Age Groups-^ 



1/ 



Kane County 

2/ 
Age Group 1950 1960 197CT 



Washington County 



1950 1960 1970- 



2/ 







13.2 



14.7 



12.2 



14.4 



12.8 



12.5 



5 - 14 24.2 

1 5 - 24 15.5 

25 - 44 24.8 

45 - 64 16.5 

65+ 5.8 



23.8 


24.4 


14.1 


18.9 


22.5 


17.8 


18.2 


18.2 


6.7 


8.2 



23.1 


25.6 


22.4 


16.8 


14.5 


20.6 


2 2.') 


19.6 


18.3 


15.9 


16.9 


15.7 


6.9 


10.6 


10.4 



Total: 100.0 100.0 100.0 



100.0 100.0 100.0 



t 



Columns may not total 100 due to rounding. 

— Washington County, Utah, an Economic Profile; Kane County, Utah, an 
Economic Profile - Both Univ. of Utah 1967. 

2/ 

- Population Projections, Utah and Utah Counties. J. J. Rasmussen 

et al, Univ. of Utah 1967. 



12 



B. Income 






Personal income is the total income received by all 
inhabitants in a given area. Personal income considered 
alone for any given area has little meaning, but when 
its compared with previous time periods, and/or other 
areas, it serves as a sliding scale to economic activity 
for that area. Furthermore, when its components are 
separated, these may be individually or collectively 
analyzed for strength and weakness of a particular 
economy. Personal income takes on additional meaning 
when placed on a per capita basis where it operates to 
indicate the relative well-being of the area's 
inhabitants. - 



In 1968, Kane County per capita income was only 48.7% of 
that for the nation and (SO. 8% for the State. Tn 
Washington County, it was 53.8% of that for the nation 
and 67.3% for the State. See Table V,Page 15. Utah was 
80.6% of that for the nation in per capita income. This 
is almost 7% less than in 1960. Coconino and Mohave 
County figures are shown in Table V for comparative and 
reference purposes. Per capita income figures are 
generally larger due to a higher level of economic 



3/ 

— Arizona State and County Personal Income Projections 

1975 and 1980. Planning Division, Department of 

Economic Planning and Development 1970. 



13 



' 









activity in and about Kingman and Flagstaff areas, 
however, they are too far removed from the District 
Statistical Region to be of relevance as an index. 



14 



J 



Table V 
Personal Income for Four County Region 



9/ Per Capita Percent of State 
Area I960- 7 LS£5 V 1968 '60 '65 '68 

Kane Co. $ 3,904,926 3,500,279 4,166,000 75.6 67.6 60.8 

Per Capita 1464 1346 1666 

Washington Co. 12,444,903 16,982,174 21,547,000 62.6 68.4 67.3 

Per Capita 1212 1598 1842 

Utah 1,724,100,000 2,342,216,233 2,884,151,000 

P ^ Capita 1936 2335 2739 ^^ ^ ^ 

U#S . 398,762,000,000 535,949,000,000 683,702,000,000 87.4 84.4 80.6 

Per Capita 2215 2765 3 ^ 21 _ 



k^ Coconino „ 3/ 

Co. 85,600,00c 17 90,900,000 ^ 109,000,000" 

t, r r«- oiio 1SSS 1816 108.4 64.7 60.0 
Per Capita 2112 1-djd 

Mohave Co. 13,300,000 29,600,000 43,900,000 

Per Capita 1769 2110 2559 90.8 87.8 84.6 

Arizona 2,456,300,000 3,780,000,000 5,044,000,000 Percent of U.S. 

Per Capita 1948 2402 3026 87.9 86.9 88.5 



1_/ J. Whitney Hansk, Personal Income in Utah Counties 1958-62 and 1962-66. Bureau 
of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Utah 1964 & 67. 

_2/ Utah Department of Employment Security. 

3/ 1959 instead of 1960 figure: Office of Business Economics s JJ. S. Deptment of 
Commerce. 



i 



15 



5* 



i 



A household consists of those who dwell under the same 
roof and compose a family. In 1960, Kane and Washirg:on 
Counties had 3.66 persons per household, slightly more 
than the State average of 3.62 persons per household. 
Both counties show decreases from 1950 level of 3.94 
and 3.86 respectively. To determine 0E0 income poverty 
thresholds, these figures are rounded to the nearest 
whole number of four persons per family. 

The Office of Economic Opportunity considers a non- farm 
family of four members to be In poverty if it has an 
annual income of $3,600 or less. For a farm family, 
its $3,000. - / See Table VI. In Kane County, over 22% 
of households could be classified under the poverty level. 
In Washington County, it runs over 30%. In terms of actual 
families in poverty and receiving public assistance the 
number is considerably lower. This is probably due to 
high level of self-sufficiency of non- farm families, 
private assistance, and intensive case work by welfare 
workers. In 1968, 6.2% of Kane County's population was 
receiving public assistance, while at the same time 
only 4.6% of Washington County's population was on 
welfare. The State Average in 1968 was 4.2% 



W 



4/ 0E0 Instruction 6004- la. 
5/ Ibid. 

16 



fe 



€ 





T3 






C 






cO 






A 






C^ 






vO 






CT* 






•— i 


en 

a 




J-i 


3 







O 




<+-l 






to 






0) 


0) 




4-1 


g 




CO 







6 


CJ 




•H 


c 




4J 


t— 1 




tO 






w 


to 




a 


CO 


M 


0) 




> 


E 


>> 




o 


JD 


<U 


u 




r-l 


c 


CO 


XI 


(—1 


T3 


cO 




»— 1 


H 


1— 1 


o 




CO 


,c 




c 


QJ 




o 


to 




in 


3 




U 


O 




0) 


32 




PM 


4-) 




<D 


c 




i—i 


<D 




£> 


CJ 




CO 


>-l 




to 


QJ 




o 


Pm 




a 






to 





CN]I 



to C7» 

on 

3| C7n 

o| c^ 
O 



to 

C3 

U 
> 

CO 

-a 
i— i 

o 
x. 
<u 
to 
3 
O 
DC 

4-> 

G 
0) 

o 

CD 

Pu 



0) 

tO TO 

3 ~i 

O O 



c 

QJ < 

O M-l 

S-< O C/) 

CD 

Pm ^ 



u 

CO ^ 

-i o 

y r4 o 

moo 
Z Q 



&*•$ 



vD 



CN 



m 

CN 



m 






00 



CO 



<t 



r- 



^ 



r~ 



(30 



o 
c_> 

cu 
c 

CO 



00 
CN 



CO 

o 

CM 



o 
en 



vD 



—< CO 



ON 

CN 



o 

c 

o 

4-» 

oo 

c 

•H 

to 
CO 



ON 

CM 






cO 


en 


CO 


O 


m 


CM 


ct> 


<r 


en 



ON 



m cn 

O cn 

o <r 



m 

i—i 

CO 

a-* 
O 
r- 



o 



cu 
c 

•H 

CO 
00 

GO 

c 



cu 

S-i 
CO 



CO 



0) 
CJ 

3 
O 

CO 



00 

c 

•1-1 

?^ 

3 

01 
> 



W 



to 

e 
cu 

4-1 



to 
CO 
u 

I 

c 
o 

c 



to 
cu 
-a 

3 
•—I 

CJ 

X 

QJ 

to 

CD 

cO 

4J 

>-l 

CU 



cn! 



17 



. 



In 1968, total personal income in Washington County 
was more than five times the personal income in Kane 
County. See Table VII. In Kane County, Government 
constituted the largest sector for derived personal 
income rising to over 27% of all earned wages and 
salaries in 1968. This is a 14% increase over the 
1960 level. Personal income earned from the wholesale- 
retail trade sectors and the service industry sector 
registered significant gains between 1960 and 1968 to 
elevate them to second and third places respectively 
as major sources of personal income. On the other 
hand, contract construction derived personal income 
fell disastrously during this period of time. The 
completion of the Glen Canyon Dam Project was 
primarily responsible for this decline. In con- 
junction with this, personal income earned from 
agriculture realized a significant decrease over 
the same reporting period. In I960, it was the 
third highest source of personal income; in 1968, 
it was fourth. See Table VIII. 

In Washington County, 4.1 million dollars or almost 
20% of personal income in 1968 was earned from Govern- 
ment wages and salaries. Income earned from contract 
construction, manufacturing and wholesale- retail trades 
registered gains over the 1960-68 period. See Table VII 

18 



' 






The service industry reflected a 237° increase in 

dollar earned over the same period, but in terms 

of keeping pace with other major sectors lost 2% 

as a source of personal income. Agriculture did 

likewise, increasing dollar sales 16.9% but failing 

to keep pace with the growth of other sectors. See 

Table VIII. 






19 



'9 Table VII 

Sources of Personal Income 1960 & 1968 



Source 




I960 V 


KANE 




1968 -' 




WASHINGTON 
1960 - 


11 
1968 - 


Agriculture 


$ 


433,015 


$ 




169,947 


$ 


1,392,504 


$ 


1,627,089 


Mining 




7,403 






5,439 




25,375 




44,570 


Contract Cons 


tr. 


761,110 






69,370 




426,620 




1,156.016 


Manufacturing 




78,080 






24,298 




80,520 




684,627 


Wholesale, 




















Retail Trade- 




314,550 






612,276 




1 ,826,720 




3,129,412 


Services 




298,158 






403,742 




949,554 




1,169,719 


Government 




524,608 




1 


,101,249 




2,317,730 




4,130,012 


3/ 
Other - 


$ 


1 ,488,002 
3,904,966 


$ 


1 

4 


,627,128 
,013,449 




5,425,880 




8,957,257 


TOTAL 


$ 


12,444,903 


$ 


20,898,802 



<9? 

"%S3lJ Kane County, Utah, Washington County, Utah, an Economic Profile (each). 

2/ Personal Income in Utah Counties, J. Whitney Hanks, Bureau of Economic & Business 
Research, University of Utah 1970. 

3/ Includes Transportation, Communications, Public Utilities, Finance, Property, etc, 



20 



W 



r 



~ 



V 



w 



Table VIII 
Percent Personal Income from Major 
Industry Groups 1960-68 



Source 



1960 i- 7 



KANE 



1968 



2/ 



WASHINGTON 



1960 



1/ 



1968 - 7 



Agriculture 11.1 
Mining .2 

Contract Constr. 19.5 



Manufacturing 


2.0 


Wholesale 




Retail Trade 


8.1 


Services 


7.6 


Government 


13.4 


Other - 7 


38.1 



TOTAL 



100.0 



4 


.2 




.2 


1 


.7 




.6 


15, 


.3 


10, 


.1 


27, 


.4 


40, 


,5 



100.0 



11.2 

.2 
3.4 

.7 
14.7 

7.6 

18.6 

43.6 
100.0 



7.8 
.2 

5.5 

3.3 
15.0 

5.6 

19.7 

42.9 
100.0 



1/ Kane County, Utah, Washington County, Utah, an Economic Profile (each), 
University of Utah 1967. 

2/ Personal Income in Utah Counties, J. Whitney Hanks, Bureau of Economic 
& Business Research, University of Utah 1970. 

3/ Includes Transportation, Communication, Public Utilities, Finance, 
Property, etc. 



21 



JF 



<$& 



<3fe 

\4& 



C. Employment 

Employment is the most common data base used in 
measuring economic activity. In particular, it is 
often used to measure the status and growth of an 
areas economy, especially in a small area where 
detailed data is not available as would be in a 
national level. — 

Between 1950 and 1960, Kane County witnessed a 
dramatic 44.4% decline in agricultural employment. 
See Table IX. In 1950, one out of three persons 
employed was working in agriculture, but by 1960, 
only one in seven persons employed in the county 
was working in agriculture. Since 1960, employment 
in the construction sector declined even more 
dramatically with the completion of the Glen 
Canyon Project. These declines have been mostly 
offset by increased economic activity in the wholesale- 
retail trades, service and manufacturing industries. 



6/ 

An Economic Bypass Study of St. George, Utah, College 
and Economic and Business Research - Univ. of Utah 1955 



22 



I 



- 



Table IX 
Percent of Total Kmpl oyment in Major Industries 



Industry 


Kane 


Washington 


1950 


1960 


Percent,, 
Change 


1950 


1960 


Percent 
Change — 


2/ 
Agriculture - 


33.3 


15.2 


- 44.4 


34.2 


21.0 


- 34.3 


Mining 


.3 


0.0 


100.0 


1.2 


2.6 


+128.6 


Construction 


11.5 


11.7 


+ 23.8 


8.3 


7.7 


- 1.2 


Manufacturing 


8.0 


15.1 


+124.6 


3.8 


4.6 


+ 29.1 


Wholesale- Retail Trade 


13.6 


23.2 


+1115.9 


16.9 


21.6 


+108.1 


Services 


20.3 


26.5 


+ 58.9 


21.5 


29.2 


+ 45.3 


Government 


5.5 


5.0 


+ 10.5 


6.4 


5.9 


- 1.1 


Other 


7.5 


3.3 


- 202.9 


8.7 


7.4 


- 27.6 


TOTAL 


100.0 


100.0 




100.0 


100.0 





TOTAL LABOR FORCE 



733 



902 



3,048 3,332 



& 



Source: U. S. Bureau of the Census 
1/ Based on number of persons employed 
2/ Includes Forestry and Fishing. 



23 






( 






j0 



«, 



,m 



% 



The economy of Kane County is dependent more on 
export indistries than those industries that produce 
for local consumption. See Table X. The reason for 
this is that export industries attract outside dollars 
that potentially have a multiplier affect on the local 
economy that in turn will lead to increased employment 
and population expansion. 

Lumber is the largest single source of export employment 
in Kane County. The largest employer in this export 
industry is the Kaibab Lumber Company located seven 
miles south of Kanab in Fredonia, Arizona. In 1970, 
the company employed close to 140 residents of Kane 
County, representing nearly one out of eight employed 
in the labor force. 

The retail trade and service industries, have significantly 
grown as a percent of total employment since 1950, but are 
hampered to provide a steady service of employment by the 
seasonal nature of the tourist- recreation trade. Hence, 
they serve to create peak- trough conditions on the labor 
market during the mid- winter months and thus helps 
aggravate the unemployment scene. In some years, un- 
employment may run upwards to 45% of the labor force 
during these slack periods. 



8S^ 



24 



%S0 



Table X 
Economic Activities of Kane County 
(1960 Employment Measure) 



Economy Group 



I 1 2/ 

Local — 


Export — 


Total - 


37 


92 


129 


9 


90 


99 


25 


103 


128 


s 17 


103 




4 







4 







9 





9 


37 


9 


46 


35 


116 


151 


8 


2 




13 


50 




14 


64 




12 





12 


173 


51 


224 


4 







2 


2 




7 


20 




48 


20 




82 







30 


9 




30 


12 


42 



,w 



Agriculture, Forestry 

Construction 

Manufacturing 

Furniture, Lumber and Wood Products 17 

Food and Kindred Products 

Printing and Publishing 
Utilities 
Wholesale Trade 
Retail Trade 

Food Stores 

Eating and Drinking Places 

Other Retail Trade 
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate 
Services 

Repair Business 

Entertainment and Recreation 

Hotel and Lodging 

Personal Services 

Educational Services 

Professional Services 

Public Administration 

Total All Activities 367 



473 



1/ Source: Utah State Department of Employment. 
2/ Population and Economic Base Study, Kane County, Utah. 
PRA - Planning and Research Associates - 1969. 

25 



840 



Since 1952, despite a widely fluctuating labor market, 
the labor force in Kane County, excluding the Glen 
Canyon Project years, has remained relatively consistent 
in numbers. This labor force has average close to 1000 
workers. Due to this obvious immobility of the labor 
force and lack of opportunities - unemployment has been 
high compared to the State or nation on a whole. In 
1969, It was running 13. 7Z compared to a State average? 
of 5%. 

The future employment scene in Kane County is not clear. 
The proposed transmission line project may add a few 
people to the labor force. This could start early in 
~* / 1971, drawing mostly on local unskilled labor and sub- 

contract work - since unionized labor teams from the 
metropolitan centers of Arizona, California and Utah 
would supply the bulk of needed skills and jobs based 
on a percentage of work involved in each respective state, 
Perhaps the Kaiparowits Coal Project offers the greatest 
potential for employment stabilization in Kane County. 
See Section under Mining . 

The economy of Washington County is based primarily on 
farming. While agriculture has served as the basic 
industry its importance over the years has steadily 
declined. From 1950 to 1960, persons employed in 

26 



agriculture declined 34%, while employment in 
manufacturing, the trade and service industries 
increased significantly over the same period. 
Since 1967, economic growth, particularly in St. 
George and locality, has taken a decided upturn. 

Between January 1, 1965 and April 15, 1969, permits 
for 285 dwellings, 40 commercial and industrial 
establishments, and 100 motel units were issued, 
the majority of which were issued during the last 
two year period reflected.— Employment, particulary 
non- agriculture, increased 44% during the 1950-65 
period. In St. George alone, between April 7, 1965 
■S and April 1968, non- agricultural payrolls increased 

by almost 700 people, ?L f Since then, observations 
indicate that this pace has increased at an even 
more accelerated rate. 

As in Kane County, Washington County is more dependent 
on export industries than non- export industries. See 
Table XI. It has an export- non- export employment 
ratios of 1.00 to .94. 1* 

-Growth pattern of the St. George, Utah Area. I. Dale 
Despain & Associates, 1969. 

2'ibid. 

9/ 

— An Economic Bypass Study of St. George, Utah Area. Bureau 

of Economic and Business Research, Univ. of Utah, 1965. 






tea* 



27 



L 






c 



x 

co 

H 



, , uj|gj' 



4J 




C 




<u 




E 




>, 




o 




t— 1 




a 




E 




W 




-a 




O) 




4-1 




c 




0) 




•H 




u 




O 






o 


■u 


vO 


u 


a> 





r-4 


a 




£ 


>N 




5-J 


T3 


4J 


C 


CO 


CO 


3 




-a 


4-» 


c 


C 


H 


CD 




E 


>i 


>> 


X) 


o 




.—1 


-o 


a 


CU 


s 


4-1 

•r-( 




CO 


.— 1 


co 


CO 


cO 


4J 


r- ( 


o 


U 


H 




CO 




0) 




u 




< 




0) 




00 




S-( 




o 




CD 




o 





CO 



O 



o 

4-1 

c 

a) .— i 

CJ cO 

J-j 4J 

0) o 

CM H 



•-J CO 



JJ 




5-1 




o 




a 


T— 1 


£ 


CO 
4J 







4J 


H 


C 




CD 


<4-l 


u 


G 


s-l 




cu 


co 


P4 


•H 



TJ 








CD 








4-1 4-> 








5-< c 


m 


CO 


r- 


o cu 


m 


LO 


On 


Q. 'H 


CJ* 


CO 


m 


X 5-i 








w o 









o 
o 



LT| 



co 



CM 

X> 



o 

CM 






co 



d 



d 

CM 



CO 

d 



on 








cu 


























o 
























r— 1 


•H 
























CO 


> 


r- 


CO 


ON 


r-» 


*£) 


CO 


CO 


m 


nO 


V4D 


CO 


CJ 


u 


on 


m 


CO 


<r 


CM 


CM 


CM 


vO 


CO 


no 


m 


o 


cu 


CO 


r— 1 


r- 










CM 






CM 



m 

i— i 
m 



ON 



^o 






CM 

m 

CO 



H 

m 



vD 
CO 
CO 



co 

3 

-a 

c 



cu 
u 
3 

4-» 

I— ) 
3 
CJ 

•H 
U 

oo 

< 



3 

CJ 
•H 
S-l 

00 
< 

C 

o 

2 



r^ 



00 r-l 

cm r^ 



on 



X) 



CJ 

3 
J-i 

4-1 
CO 

c 

O 

O 

4-1 
CJ 

CO 
U 

4-» 

c 
o 
c_> 



CM 



d 

CM 



CO 



CM CO 






O 



vC 



ON 



o 

ON 



CO 
CO 



ON 

CM 



CT> 

m 



00 

c 

•H 

5-1 

3 

4-1 
CJ 
CO 
<U 
3 
C 
CO 



o 
c_> 

C 

o 

•H 

4-1 

cO 

4J 

M 

o 
a 

co 

c 

CO 

u 

H 



cu 
-a 

cO 
5j 
H 



cu 

TJ 
CO 

5-4 

H 



fH CO 

O 4-> 



CO 



cu 
o& 






cu 

4-1 

cO 

4-1 
CO 

w 



CO 
CU 
oi 

cu 
o 
c 

CO 

5-i 
3 
to 

C 



CU 

a 

c 

CO 

c 

•H 



m 



-t 



CO 



o 

on 



V40 

m 



NO 

m 



ON 

o 



co 

cu 

CJ 
•ri 
> 

J-i 
CU 
CO 



c 
cu 
E 
C 
5j 
CU 
> 
O 

o 



co 



c 
3 



o 

J-i 
CO 
CU 
CO 

cu 
06 

co 
co 

cu 
c 

•f-t 
co 
3 

CQ 

T3 
C 

cO 



O 

c 
o 
g 
w 

o 

3 
cO 
cu 

5-i 
3 
CQ 



CU 
CJ 
5-i 
3 
O 
CO 



28 



c 






w 



Vtfg? 



Future employment growth in Washington County will 
rest with St. George and vicinity, the principal 
trade area for the region. It is here that business 
activity and growth have centered for the past 30 to 
40 years. What happens to the economy over the next 
decade will depend on the ability of the community to 
respond to new Interstate 15 Highway Bypass, the Dixie 
Reclamation Project, and exploitation of its unique 
position as gateway to Southern Utah, with its chain 
of State and National Parks and Monuments. See Table XII 



29 



: 



<J 



•x 



\ii^ff 



CO 

cu 
u 
< 

X 
CO 



0) 
60 
U 




4-> 
CO 



X 

CU 
> 



a> 









CO 




i—l 




H 






to 


M 


Cu 


c 


o 


•H 


i-> 


60 CO 


-a 




o 




-J 




0) 




CJ 




CO 




.— i 


en 


PL| 


a 




o 


M 


4-> 


C 


CO 


•H 




4-> 




>a 




c 









■H 




j-J 




cd 




4-> 


CO 


CO 


a 




o 


QJ 


4-> 


CJ 


CO 


>H 




> 




i-i 




0) 




CO 






CO 


>. 


cu 


cd 


r-H 


3 


CJ 


-C 


•H 


ODX 


•H 


cu 


32 


> 




en 




a) 


>> 


i— i 


i—4 


a 


!- 


•H 


CO 


X 


a) 


0) 


5H 


> 



r-l 

CO 



o 


o 


O 


o 


Q 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


O 


O 


o 


O 


LO 


nC 


CN 


<r 


ON 


CN 


o. 


vC 


<r 


r^ 


co 


^ 


M3 


r* 


CO 


on 


r*» 


r^ 


r- 


o 


o 

1— 1 


■—1 


00 
t— 1 


CN 



O 

o 


8 

00 


o 
o 
o 


o 
o 


o> 

r— 1 


r-H 


MD 

i-H 


CO 

o 

CM 



CN 



o 


o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


CO 


CM 


<N 


LO 


LO 


— i 


CO 


vD 


>£> 


CN 


CO 


LO 



O 

o 


O 

o 


o 

O 


g 


8 


8 


o 
o 


8 


1—1 


r- 


o\ 


LO 


CO 


r- 


on 


vO 


v£> 


n£> 


LO 


00 


r- 


CN 


1—1 


o 


LO 


<o 


00 


<t 


s0 


O 


CO 


no 


CN 


CN 


CM 


CO 


CO 


<r 


^o 


o> 



vO 


nO 


r— 1 


sO 


O 


w— 1 


1— t 


vO 


<r 


CN 


O 


r» 


CO 


o 


<—t 


Csl 


CO 


\D 


\D 


<r 


r»- 


r-H 


sO 


o 


o 


CO 


LO 


CN 


CO 


•— 1 


CM 


CN 


vO 


00 


CM 


vO 


o 


00 


00 


O 


LO 


LO 


sO 


r» 


CO 


00 


CO 


1— 1 



o 


o 


LO 


o 


O 


LO 


LO 


o 


CM 


O 


r- 


LO 


i—i 


r» 


00 


o 


00 


i—i 


O 


ON 


CM 


LO 


o 


LO 


o 


<r 


sO 


Csl 


<r 


i—l 


CO 


CM 


CO 


LO 


CT> 


CO 


r» 


LO 


LO 


r* 


00 


00 


00 


O 


o 


•—4 


vC 


CO 



CM 



o 


O 


LO 


o 


LO 


LO 


ON 


o 


r^ 


<r 


LO 


CO 


CO 


LO 


CM 


o 


CM 


CO 


<t 


oo 


ON 


•—I 


LO 


to 


CM 


CN 


CN 


CM 


CM 


CO 


<r 


sO 



O 


i— I 


CM 


CO 


<r 


LO 


o 


LO 


v£> 


sO 


sO 


sO 


sO 


sO 


r-<. 


r» 


ON 


ON 


on 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 


ON 



X 
cO 



LH 

o 



G 
3 



X 

CJ 

!-i 

CO 
cu 
en 

CJ 
Qi 

CO 
(V) 
CU 

c 

•H 

to 

3 
CO. 

-3 



E 
O 

c 
o 

CJ 

w 



3 
CO 

a> 

1-4 

3 
CQ 

en 

>N 

CO 

,C 
60 

•H 

33 

L|_l 

o 



4-1 

a 

cu 

Q 
CU 

4-1 

CO 

4-1 
CO 

•9 

4J 
£3 



CU 
CJ 

1-J 

3 
O 
CO 



30 



J 



Vv 



/«■" 

W 



The basic industry in the District Statistical Region 
is manufacturing. It is the single largest source of 
employment in the entire region. See Table XIII. This 
industry is largely represented by Kaibab Lumber Company 
located in Fredonia, A r izona. They employ about 265 people, 
the majority of which live in Kane County, while approxi- 
mately 80 of those employed live in Fredonia. Manufac- 
turing in Colorado City is represented by a Particle 
Board Plant, a Door Mill, and an Artificial Limb Plant, 
but total employment figures are not know. In Page, manu- 
facturing is largely represented by Vostron Industries 
that employees about 28 people. 

Most employment in the District Statistical Region is 
connected directly with export industries. Most dollars 
earned, although normally used to develop the local economy, 
flow into Utah where they are used to develop the economies 
of Kane and Washington Counties. 

The future employment picture is not clear. It will depend 
largely on projected economic activity in the region. The 
transmission line proposal may add some new employment to 
the area through subcontract work or labor of an unskilled 
nature. The construction of thermo electric plants near 
Page scheduled to start in 1971 may involve upwards to 



31 



J 



'W 



2000 workers for a short p.riod of time. After completion, 
175 permanent employees will live in or near Page. The 
Kaiparowits Coal Project scheduled to start in 1976, will 
have an enormous impact on the region creating employment 
for hundreds and an annual payroll in the millions. See 
Mining Section. Attraction of new manufacturing could 
provide employment for many in the area, but lack of 
housing and poor transportation facilities may limit 
this type of expansion. Last, projected tourist and 
recreation activity over the next decade could have 
an expansionary effect on employment in the service 
and trade sectors, however seasonal it may be. 



32 



c 









J 



CJ 

•H 
CO 

CO 
6*5 CQ 



m 


o 


co 


O 


O 


r-« 


o 


o> 


m 


co 




ON 


<f 


on 



6-5 

00 



u 
c 

e 

o o 

•1-4 t— I 

to a, 

CQ KJ 



c 

CD 

E 
^ o 

CO r— I 

.u a 

o e 



O 



o 

CM 



r- 



co 

CM 



a> 



on 

CN 



CN 



oo 



ON O 



o 



CN 

co 



*•><« / 



J —< 





>. 






5-i 






4-1 






CO 






3 






-o 




l-l 


c 




h-l 


M 




M 






X 






aj 






i— i 


4-) 




-Q 


c 




CO 


<1J 




H 


e 






>. 


CD 




o 


w 




i— 1 


CO 




a. 


PM 




a 






w 





u 

co 

cO 

6-s CQ 



4-1 

c 

CD 

e 

o o 

•H '-I 

co e 



4-1 

c 

cy 

6 

r-i O 

cO ^ 

4-1 Dl| 



O 
On 



ON 



CO 



o 

CO 



co 






6-5 
O 



CM 



X> 



00 



m 
en 



MD 






CO 
CN 

-J" 



o 


ON 


CM 


vjO 


ON 


<r 


m G 


m 


<r 


<r 


CM 


■—1 




r^ 


ON 


O 


—4 






i— 1 




t— i 


i— 1 


r^- 



c 

CD 
B 

a 

o 

r-H 

o 
> 

a 

13 

c 

CO 

00 
C 

•H 

c 
c 

cO 

i-H 

CM 



s 

o 
c 
o 



\s»/ 







c 




CJ 






4-J 












o 




•H 






CO 












•H 




i—l 






W 












4-J 




X> 


















o 

3 




£ 






i— t 
CO 












^ 










0) 












4-J 




o3 






a: 












CO 






















C 


00 


• 






^ 












o 


C 


£ 


















o 


S-4 


O 






• 




4-1 


<0 






4-» 


3 


U 


co 




Cfl 




c 


3 


a 




CJ 


4-J 




ai 




C 


co 


a; 


4-1 




CO 


CJ 


• 


•H 




M 


CD 


p 


•—4 


4-1 


00 


U 


CO 


a 


4-1 






CJ 


c 


3 


(/) 


c 


4-> 


4-1 


CO 


•r-l 


<u 


a 


•l-l 


M 


CJ 


3 


•H 


co 


3 


c 


i—l 


"3 


• 


> 


CD 


•H 


T3 


c 


c 


C 


CO 


•H 


cO 


c 


^ 


> 


(-4 


C 


■H 


o 


cO 


J-i 


4-) 


>-! 


•H 


CD 


o 


00 


M 


s 


V 


S 


H 


3 


H 


U-i 


in 


o 


<c 



4-1 

O 



a 

CD 
Q 

CO 

C 

o 
to 

•H 

u 

< 



CD 
CJ 

3 

o 
en 



33 



D. Industries 

1. Agriculture 

Livestock is the largest single contributor to farm 
income in both Kane and Washington Counties. In 1964, 
livestock and livestock products other than poultry 
and dairy products accounts for almost 98% of the 
value of farm products sold in Kane County as 
compared with Washington County where livestock 
products accounted for nearly 40% of the value of 
all farm products sold. Note trend in Table XIV. 

In 1964, crops accounted for 4% of all farm products 
sold in Kane County and 24% of all farm products sold 
x "**' in Washington County. Field crops were the principal 

crops of highest value in both counties bringing over 
three quarters of a million dollars income to Washington 
County, and only $15,836 to Kane County. 

The total value of all farm products sold in Kane 
County amounted to $523,329 and in Washington County, 
$3,903,912. 

Over 95% of livestock operations in Kane and Washington 
Counties may be classed as cow-calf operations. Since 
most operations are not of an economic size, the majority 
of operations depend on non- agricultural jobs either on 
a seasonal or full-time basis to supply the bulk of their 
family income, for without these jobs their livestock 
operations would not exist. 

34 



X-*- 



<& 






-o 

c 

CO 

ON 

LO 

ON 





O 


<is£; 


to 


*£ 


en 

4J 

o 


^ 


3 


j3 


-o 


cO 


O 


H 


i-i 




pm 




e 




u 




cO 




lJM 



0) 

3 
f— i 

CO 

> 






















ON 


CM 






<r 


CM 


i— 1 




CO 


vD 


CO 


ON 




4-1 


ON 


n 


•t 




CJ 


i— 1 


CO 


CO 




3 




CM 


O 




"8 




LO 


ON 




>-< 






CO 




Pm 




co 

ON 


o 




cO 




CM 


o 




Ua 




rv 


r* 






ON 


r- 


CM 




i— i 


LO 


en 


U-N 




f-H 


ON 


CO 


o 




< 


r- ( 




<o- 
















<r 


o 


ON 






vO 




• 






ON 


o- 


CO 


4-1 




i— < 




CM 


3 










O 










-* 


^ co 








CO 
CL> 


.-< 4-1 

cO u 








S-i 


3 








jD 


MM S -O 


ON 


m 


u-l 




o u o 


m 


• 


• 


<r 


cO U 


ON 


m 


r^ 


vo *-n 


6-? fc Pm 


r-4 




i—i 


- 3 





















OJ — < 
<P OJ 


















co X) 




















-)< 




<r 


ON 


CO 






vD 


CO 


<J 






ON 


r^ 


r— 1 


CO 




r-A 


n 


#* 


a 






o 


<r 


o 






CM 


CO 


u 








ON 


u 










.— ( 


4-1 








■— 1 


c 








< 


3 
O 










e 




CM 


r^ 




< 




t— 1 


CO 

o 






ON 


n 


n 






LO 


^O 


<r 






ON 


<r 


CO 






I— 1 


<jy 


CO 
CO- 






o- 


^o 


CO 






^o 


• 


• 






ON 


r^ 


On 






r-l 


ON 


CO 




-H CO 










.—1 4-1 










CO CJ 










3 








en 


m B X3 


on 


CO 


o 


*-> >. 


O S-i 


m 


• 


• 


o P 


co H 


ON 


ON 


CO 


3 -H 


6-s Pn Pm 


.— i 


ON 


<r 


-a co 










O Q 










}_l 










cm -a 










c 










-* co 










o 




<r 


CO 


s£J 


o >> 




vD 


in 


1 — 1 


4-1 5-1 




ON 


ON 


1—1 


en 4J 




r— 1 


A 


#1 


CD r-l 






O 


<r 


> 3 






i— i 


LO 


•H O 






LO 


m 


J Pm 


4-> 

c 






t— I 


^ c 


3 








cO 


o 








X X! 


E 








O 4-1 


< 




CM 


vD 


O 






CO 


ON 


4-1 S-I 






r— 1 


<r 


CO CD 






9k 


a 


CD ,C 




a\ 


<—l 


CM 


> W 




m 


co 


CM 


■H O 




On 


CO 


<r 


J 




■— i 


<o- 


CM 










c 










o 










4J 










M 










C 






CO 




•H 






CD 


01 


.a 






M 


c 


to 






< 


cO 


cO 

3 



St 

N40 
ON 



CO 

a 

o 

u 



CO 

a 



PM 



<4-l 

o 



CO 
> 



OJ 
S-i 
3 
4-1 
i— I 

3 

CJ 
•H 
rJ 
M 

< 

CM 

O 

CO 

3 
co 
C 
CD 

u 



CO 

3 



0) 

u 
u 

3 

o 

CO 



to 

CL 

o 
u 

CO 

u 

cO 

a> 



3 

-a 
o 

r4 

Pm 



to 

0) 

r— I 

cO 

4J 
0) 

oo 
> 



ON 


00 


co 


<r 


r^ 


r-H 


#\ 


A 


O 


<fr 


CM 


CO 




ON 



ON 



CO 
CO 



to 

o 

u 

u 

-a 



u^ 



CO 
CO 
CO 

«\ 
CO 



CM 

.—I 
CM 



co 



O 



CO 

co 



nO 
CO 
00 



CM 

ON 

O 

CO 

m 



0) 

c 



c 

•H 

to 
cO 
3 



0) 
5-i 

3 

4-1 
i— < 

3 
O 
•H 
S-i 
OX) 

< 

O 

to 

3 
to 
C 
0) 

c_> 



CO 



OJ 
CJ 

M 

3 
O 
CO 



to 

4J 
CJ 

3 
TJ 

O 

a 



CJ 

CD 

a 

to 

TJ 

c 

cO 



cO 
S-i 

3 

4-1 
i— I 

3 

a 
+j 

Sj 

o 

rG 
co 

O) 
XJ 

3 
■— i 

o 

c 



35 



■,*' 



w 



Over 98% of cattle operations in the District 
Statistical Region are cow-calf operations. As 
in Kane and Washington Counties, the large majority 
of these operations are not economical and most 
operators must engage in non-agricultural jobs in 
the community impact areas to support these opera- 
tions and/or their families. (See Table XVI.) 

This is not surprising for the U. S. Department of 
Commerce reported negative farm earnings in both 
Coconino and Mohave Counties during the 1965-67 
period. The credibility of these earnings is 
corroborated by two studies. One study conducted 
on costs and returns in the western cattle industry, 
and especially in Arizona showed returns to manage- 
ment and capital to be very low or negative ._L9/ The 
other, conducted on the Arizona Strip, analyzed costs 
and returns to capital and management in three 
typical ranch sizes. The smallest ranch size 
analyzed, a 34-animal unit operation, showed $2,756 
negative returns to capital and management, the 
medium-size ranch, a 210-animal unit operation, 
returned $518, while the 337-animal unit ranch studied 



10/ 

Economic Relationships of Grazing Fees and Permitted 

\j Use of Public Rangeland to Net Income of Western 

Livestock Rancher - A Regional Analysis U.S.D.A. 
Administrative Report, 1962. 

36 






~ 



w 

returned $3,311 to capital and management. In 
terms of return to fixed assets and management, the 

small unit returned -4.9%, the medium and larger 

12/ 
units returned 0.3% and 1.5% respectively. If 

a charge is made for capital at its opportunity cost 

in these operations, the return to capital and 

management must be considered negative . 

TABLE XV 

Ranch Income and Expense Summary, by size of ranch, Arizona Strip. 

BLM, Forest and Private Range 



Size of Ranch CYL 



J 



1 tei 



34 



210 



Re ce i p t s : 

Cattle Sales 
Crop Sales 

Gov't Conservation Payments 
Total Ranch Income 

Expenses : 

Cash Costs 
Non-cash Costs 

Total Operating Expenses 

Net Ranch Income 

Minus Operator Labor 

Return to Capi tal & Management 



2,756 



518 



337 



$2,092 13,166 21,819 



$2,092 13,166 21,819 



$1,475 


5,382 


10,650 


871 


2,262 


2,854 


$2,346 


7,644 


13,504 


-254 


5,522 


8,315 


2,502 


5,004 


5,004 



3,311 



Return to Capital & Management as 

a percentage of total fixed investment -4.9% 0.3% 1.5% 



Source: Organization, costs and returns for Arizona Cattle Rancher 
A. R. Dickerman, et al. Univ. of Ariz., 1967. 






11/ 



12/ 



Organization, Costs and Returns for Arizona Cattle Ranchers, 
A. R. Dickerman, et al, Univ. of Arizona, 1967. 



Ibid. 



37 






> 



K:**' 



Tabic XVI 

Statistical Region Livestock Operations on BLM Land 

% of 
1/ 2/ 

Number of Cattle Nu mber of Operations - Total 

COO f 6 4 

500 - 599 1 1 

400 - 499 5- 3 

300 - 399 8 5 

200 - 299 10 6 

Less than 200 128 _8J. 

Total 15K 100 



1/ Cattle Year Long - Sheep operations are Converted. 
'-S 2/ Based on family/unit operations - many permit ttees share allotments 



3/ 



but are considered separate operations 
3/ Rounded to nearest whole number. 



38 






I 



1 -^ 



•l£i* 



w 



At this juncture is may be advantageous to briefly 
examine the livestock industry in light of the 
apparent drain that is has on the total personal 
income of Coconino and Mohave Counties. From an 
economic standpoint, the above studies pointed 
out that ranching today Is not profitable or a 
good investment in Arizona. Even a cursory 
examination of the low net returns that ranching 
provides in relation to high ranch prices would 
drive the most novice investor away. Economic 
reasoning would tell one that many more ranches 
should be up for sale when income and returns on 
investments are computed each year. But paradoxically 
few are on the market, and the typical rancher will 
keep his ranch regardless of price offers - he will 
even work outside his ranch to supplement his income 
and/or support his ranching operation, as a partial 
source of income and way of life. 

In a 1970 study, economic and non- economic aspects 
were explored in an attempt to explain this ranching 
paradox. First, it may be advantageous to discuss 
those economic aspects, outside of beef profuction, 
that could add extra values to ranch resources that 
keep ranch prices high; and ranchers operating 
despite poor earnings. Many consider ranching on 

39 



" 






I 



a convenient tax shelter that makes it more attractive 
to the investor. Studies show that there is a real value 

to the extra product, however, this value is not enough 

13/ 

to be considered a major output with livestock production. — 

Even for ranchers in the highest Federal Income bracket, 

tax savings will rarely average more than 0.5% of capital 

14/ 
over time. — It would have to be closer to 5% to explain 

high ranch prices. Another hypothesis advanced was that 

value was derived from expectations of land appreciation. 

But here the motive is not strong. Ranchland values have 

not been rising appreciably except in urban areas since 

the early 60' s while private lands have been renting at 

fees comparable to the capitalized value of leased land. 

Furthermore, it may be said that private land rentals 

offer no appreciation potential .i-2' Thus while beef 

production, tax savings, and land appreciation explain 

a portion of the sales price of ranches, it still does 

not provide a complete picture. It is here we must 

digress from traditional economics, which has not been 

able to explain this paradox, and delve into "non- economic" 

factors that involve outputs that heretofore have not been 

measured by economists. 

13 / The effects of Federal Income Taxes on Arizona Cattle 
Investments Unpublished MS Thesis Univ. of Ariz. J.L. 
Gatz 1965. 

14/ Ibid. 

15 / Cattle Ranching - a business or way of life. A. Smith 
and W. Martin. Univ. of Arizona. 



40 



I 



■l.-i, 



Two major categories of non- economic attitudes and 
values of ranchers have been classified which are 
related to ranch sale resistance and high ranch prices. 
These phenomenon are: Ranch Fundamentalism and 

r • • r 16 / 

Conspicious Consumption . — 

Ranch Fundamentalism consists of three interrelated 
attitudes about rural life, land and family. It 
is the desirability for rural life, attachment to the 
physical environment, and traditionally strength of 
of family ties through agriculture that makes ranching 
so worthwhile. The rancher that possesses strong ranch 
fundamentalism, and most do, will keep his ranch despite 
lower earnings because of the additional beenfits and 
quality of living received that he would not receive 
if he were not in ranching. 

Conspicious Consumption assumes that a certain percent 

of ranchers derive a certain prestige through ranch 

18 / 
ownership, rather than as a production unit in itself. — 

The Conspicious Consumption effect is fairly small and 
is related to land speculation. It is this person who 
is more likely to sell if a potential buyer could be 
located. 

16/ Ibid, Page 5. 

12/ Ibid, Page 5. 

18/ Ibid, Page 6. 



41 



* 



I 



When combined with Ranch Fundamentalism, these two 
would be enough to hold the market price of ranches 
above its value in beef production. 

Thus far this examination has shown that ranching 
thrives today as a way of life. It is supported by 
the values and attitudes of ranchers who wish to 
preserve their way of life despite traditional 
economic considerations of production. At this 
point - it would be fair to inquire into the future 
of Arizona ranching. Does it have a future above 
the present status of the industry. First, it may 
be logical to look at the age of the average rancher. 
u,,^ The median age is 59 years in Arizona. If we condider 

that the average life expectancy of a man today is 70 
years, and younger people on ranches have little Ranch 
Fundamentalism, then some dramatic changes may be fore- 
seen in the industry 10 years from now. It may be that 
a good number of ranchers will become available by 1980 
causing prices to sag providing demand is not significantly 
changed. 

With a good number of ranchers coming onto the market, 
a new demand may be created. There conceivably could 
be 4 types of people/organizations that may be inter- 
ested in ranching. 



r 



19/ Ibid. 



42 



: 



«$ l, 1. Other ranchers. 



^ 



2. Urban and suburban developers. 

3. Government Agencies. 

4. Individuals from outside the present 
ranching economy. 

Economists are not in a position to foresee the ranching 

structure 10 years frm now, but it is hoped that it will 

undergo a metamorphosis to a point where efficiencies of 

management and economic considerations (possibly through 

corporate structures) are more important than today; to 

provide growth and progress in the economy and insure 

ranching survival. 

2. Mining 

Mineral production in Kane County is limited to coal, 
and sand and production. The value of this production 
is very low when compared to other major industries 
accounting for $32,737 income in 1965. See Table XVII 
below. 



43 






Table XVII 
Value of Minerals Produced: Kane County 



Minerals Produced in County in County Percent 

Year Order of Value (Percent) Value of State 

1960 Coal (a), G e m Stone (NA) $ 8,082 0.00 

1961 S a nd & Gravel (99), Gem Stone (1) $8,533,400 2.10 

1962 Sand & Gravel (99), Gem Stone (1) $9,124,655 2.22 

1963 Sand & Gravel (98), Gem Stone (l),Coal (1) $1,188,440 0.31 

1964 Sand & Gravel (80), Coal (20) $ 51,047 0.01 

1965 Sand & Gravel (70), Coal (30) $ 32,737 0.01 

a. Combined with Iron County. 
a NA. Not available. 

Source: Kane County, Utah, an Economic Profile, Univ. of Utah 1967 



44 









The construction of the Glen Canyon Dam and creation 
of Lake Powell lead utility companies to focus their 
attention on the Kaiparowits Plateau Region with its 
vast coal reserves as a likely fuel source for huge 
coal fired steam- electric power generating plants 
to be located near Lake Powell to help alleviate 
pressing needs and meet ever increasing demands 
for electric power in metropolitan areas. 

Several proposals for development of these fields 
have been advanced by different companies and 
Government Agencies. The one that seems to have 
the best chance is Resource Company, a consortium 
of three utility companies that is currently studying 
the feasibility of following through with the initial 
plans to construct two 750,000 Kilowatt generating 
units. Eventually, construction could expand to a 
capacity of ten million Kilowatts. *-- 

If this project materializes it would bring enormous 
industrial development to Kane County. More than a 
billion and a half dollars would be spent on the 
project which would consume up to fifty million tons 

of coal each year or about seven times Utah's present 

i i «- - 21/ 

annual coal output. — 

20/ "Utah's Mining Industry," Utah Mining Association 

Publication 1967. 
^I/Population and Economic Base Study, Kane County, Utah, 

PRA - Planning and Research Associates - 1969. 

45 



( 






■ 



<.,■ . »■ 



With implementation of the Kaiparowitz Project, 

employment directly related to the project could 

22/ 
reach 2,500. Almost 2,100 additional jobs could 

23/ 
be created by the impact of this direct employment. 

The potential economic impact on employment and annual 
retail sales is reflected in Table XVIII, assuming 
that all the employees live in a new community in 
Kane County. 



22/ Ibid. 
23/ Ibid. 



46 



Table XVIII 
''■,' r Potential Economic Impact of Kaiparowits Project 



Employment Changes Number of Workers 

Mining and Utilities 2,500 

Retail Trade 646 

Construction 625 

Professional & Related Services 396 

Repair Services 104 

Wholesale 100 

Public Administration 100 

Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 90 

Recreation 78 

"^ Agriculture - 4 2 

Total = 4,597 

Increase in Annual Retail Sales 

Grocery Store $ 1,750,000 

Eating Places 750,000 

Department, Dry goods & Variety Stores 1,125,000 

Clothing & Shoe Stores 625,000 

Automobile Dealers 1,250,000 

Gasoline Service Stations 500,000 

Lumber Yards & Building Dealers 375,000 

Other Stores 1,625,00 

Total = $ 8,000,000 



cS 



Source: Population and Economic Base Study, Kane County, Utah, 
PRA - Planning and Research Associates, 1965. 

47 



' 



..»w 



l» 



The impact of this project becomes more easily 
understood when Table XVIII is compared with present 
data. A yearly payroll of 20 million dollars is 
expected, almost five times the present total 
personal income of Kane County. Retail sales would 
increase dramatically from the present level of under 
4.5 million dollars per year to over twelve million 
dollars jiBt four years after implementation of the 
project. With a present work force of nearly 1,000, 
this employment figure could exceed 4,500 workers 
with secondary employment considered. In summation, 
it is the single industry that offers the greatest 
possibility for stable employment and economic growth. 

In Washington County, mineral production is confined 
primarily to sand and gravel production. Some copper 
and a little oil is produced. Total production in 1964 
brought $644,387 in revenue. See Table XV1X below. 






48 



k* 



& 



Tabic XV IX 
Value of Minerals Produced: Washington County 



Minerals Produced in County in County Percent 

Year Orde r of Value (Percent) V alue of State 

1960 Copper (45), Stone (a), Sand & Gravel ( NA ) $ 92,854 0.02 

1961 Gemstone (NA), Sand & Gravel (NA), 

Copper (21), Stone (1) $225,501 0.06 

1962 Sand & Gravel (93), Copper (4), 

Stone (1), Other (1) $ 99,504 0.02 

1963 Sand & Gravel (94), Silver (4), 

Stone- (1), Other (1) $129,741 0.05 

1964 Sand & Gravel (98), Copper (1), 

Other (1) $644,387 0.17 

NA: Not available 
\ ." ; a*. Value withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company operation. 

Source: Washington County, Utah, an Economic Profile, Univ. of Utah 1967. 



49 



( 



Pj w> Oil production is of minor importance to Washington 

County, although from time to time it raises high 
speculation. There is a total of 5 wells producing 
about 75 barrels of oil a day. 

Mineral production in Washington County over the next 
decade probably will not change appreciably. There 
will be some increase in demand for sand and gravel 
to develop new roads and maintain Interstate 15 
Highway and provide for future building activity. 
The production of copper, silver, lead, oil and other 
minerals will not alter appreciably unless techniques 
are improved to a state that these minerals can be 
produced economically enough to compete with other 



:.\- 1 " 
%* 



: v 



areas. 

Mineral production in the District Statistical 
Region is confined at this time to sand and gravel 
production. Some copper has been mined over the years 
in the region but present production is very low or 
non-existent. Uranium deposits are known to exist 
in limited commercial quantities but there is little 
activity in this area presently. Gypsum is known to 
exist in commercial quantity and quality but trans- 
portation costs preclude development under prevailing 
market conditions. Some oil exploration has been 



50 



v 



^ conducted over the years, but no oil in commercial 

quantities has been located. There is little 
encouragement of large discoveries in this field. 

Over the next decade, sand and gravel production 
will probably contribute the most value of minerals 
produced. Refer to the Mineral Section in the Public 
Land Resources Section for quantity and dollar value 
of minerals produced. 

3. Outdoor Recreation and Tourism 

Kane County rests in the hub of America's golden circle 
of scenic and recreation areas and Southern Utah's National 
* Parks and Monuments that have provided unsurpassed scenic 

beauty and historic places of interest to hundreds of 
thousands of visitors each year. See Illustration 1. In 
addition, the county serves as the northern gateway to the 
North Rim of the Grand Canyon, Pipe Springs National 
Monument, and the Arizona Strip country. l n 1969, 203,000 
people visited the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, while 
16,000 visited Pipe Springs National Monument. 

The number of visitors to these scenic and historic areas 
have been increasing in recent years due in large part to 
intensive campaigns by Utah and Arizona to attract more 
visitors. See Table below and Illustration 2. 



t 

.: 57 



51 



- 



V" 



Table XX 
Visitor Attendance at Kane County's 
Major Attractions 
(In Thousands) 



Attractions 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 



* 



Bryce Canyon 

Nat'l Park 264.8 251.0 289.5 300.3 366.8 396.6 295.0 320.8 

Zion Nat' 1 

Park 604.7 622.1 681.1 705.2 763.2 815.2 788.4 877.1 

Glen Canyon 

National 

Recreation 

Area 196.4 303.5 359.7 390.0 645.5 



* This figure resulted from malfunctioning mechanic counter. 
Source: U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service. Public Use 
£.£ the Nati onal Parks, a statistic report. 



52 



< 



( 



Illustration 1 



«9 




nr - -, r -- _.,-. _ 



GRAND CA 

HYCE CANYON 
-,► ZION and 
PAH BREAKS | 





Cedar Breaks 



r^ 









,i V 



&m:Cjt^A 



*w 



r.' ^ i#p 




BRYCF CANYON, land of pines and pinnacles. 



•:J,- 




r — mar — 
Swimmers plunge in the Zion Lodge' pool 

Li _ . ..■ . 



53 



I 



( 



( 



lllUaLl'aLlUll z 



<# 



«!#• 




WAYS TO 
DISCOVER 
THE REAL 




We have a brand spanking new 
brochure; 50 great pages outlin- 
ing two dozen exciting discovery 
tours. It's free and it's designed 
to get you off the freeway and 
up close to the land. 

Our new booklet gets you into 
the back country, but keeps you 
close to motels, hotels, filling sta- 
tions—everything! 

It outlines highway systems, 
road conditions, seasonal events 
—the works! 

In short, our new booklet is an 
outline of Utah— the one Utahns 
know. Interested in discovering 
Utah like a native' 





Clip! — 

Quick, send me 
the real Utah free! 

Write to 

Utah Travel Council. Dept. L-11 

Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 

Name 

Address 

City 

State Zip — 



54 



i 






The County realizes substantial economic benefits 
from these visitors who come to see and enjoy Bryce 
and Zion National Parks, and from those travelers 
crossing over to America' s newest playground, the 
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area. It realizes 
revenue from those crossing into Northern Arizona 
to view the splendor of the Grand Cgnyon. 

The magnitude of this trade has served to create a 
service- oriented complex of motels, restaurants, 
service stations, and trailer parks not to mention 
those industries indirectly affected by this economic 
activity. 

Although this business is very attractive and contributes 
much to the service and trade sector, it is very seasonal 
and does little to provide steady employment or stabilize 
the economy. The seasonality of this business is crystal- 
lized when one considers that owners and operators of 
motels and restaurants must make annual out-of-pocket 
expenses in three summer months year after year to 
remain in business. The fact that most restaurant 
owners close their doors during at least part of the 
winter is not encouraging. One only has to drive 
through Knn.il) dining Jflnuflry or February of /my given 
year to gain an insight into the general stillness of 

55 



c 



c 



c 



of tourist business that causes unemployment to run 
as high as 45% of the labor force. 

The future of the tourist industry may be projected 
with some degree of confidence, but it's total effect 
as a stabilizing factor on the economy is not clear. 
By 1985 it is projected that the demand for tourist 
related facilities and services in the county will be 
three times as great as present demand. This means 
that the present total number of people employed in all 
industries in Kane County will be needed to satisfy this 

demand in direct or indirect industries involved with 

25/ 
tourism. Three factors are involved that may help 

Kane County meet the recreation demands of the seventies 

and improve their economic position from a stabilizing 

standpoint . 

1. An improved system of access roads to meet the 
necessary sensitivity of travelers, accustomed 
to modern interstate highways and their accom- 
panying facilities, who are becoming increasingly 

26/ 
selective in their choice of routes. " See Map 2. 

2. A need for a quantity, variety and availability 
of accommodations to attract and hold travelers. 

24/ 

— Population and Economic Base Study, Kane Count y, Utah. PRA Planning and 

Research Associates 1965. 

25/ 

— Ibid. 

26/.,. . 

— Ibid. 

56 



See following section on Utah- RfcreaL ion and 
Tourism. Present accommodations seem to be 
adequate for those travelers at Bryce and 

Zion Parks, but not Glen Canyon Recreation 

27/ 
Area. Highway 89 East to Glen Canyon City 

is virtually devoid of modern tourist 

accommodations and facilities. 

3. This factor is probably the most critical 

to Kane County's future growth. It involves 
the stabilizing nature of tourism in Kane 
County. Increased tourism under present 
conditions may only tend to aggravate the 
peak-trough employment situation unless 
these conditions are offset by developing 
winter tourism (perhaps retired people) or 
another industry to alleviate low employment 
periods. A three-fold increase in tourism may 
only deepen unemployment during the winter 
months. In 1969, Kane County unemployment 
was highest in the State - despite multi- 
million revenues from tourism. If the 
Kaiparowits Coal and Power Transmission 
Line Projects go they may have a moderating 
influence on these conditions. 



27/ 

Ibid. 

57 






( 



MAP 2 



( 



Dixie Nat' 1 Bryce Canyon 



U.14 



Forest 



Nat- 1 Park 




EXISTING 



c 
















Bullfrog 
Basin 






j 



r 



5 



c'i'Hole in The 



;noie 
Rock 



Warm ^ <f 
_c,Creey N - 



Source 



C anyo n City |\ \ 
PROPOSED 



Population and Economic Base Study, Kane County, Utah 
PRA - Planning and Research Associates, 1969 



-'•:r..^ 



KANE COUNTY RECREATION AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES 



58 



Washington County, Utah's Dixie, lies at the western 
edge of America's Golden Circle of Scenic and Recreation 
areas, and serves as the gateway to Southern Utah's 
National and State Parks, Monuments and historical 
sites. (See Illustration 3.) The County is blessed 
with mild temperatures and provided with an abundance 
of travelers via Interstate 15 (Highway 91) that 
arises out of Southern California and constitutes the 
most vital artery into Southern Utah. In 1960, the 
Utah State Department of Highways estimated that 2,270 
vehicles per day passed their traffic counter at the 
Utah-Arizona border on Highway 91 (Interstate 15). In 
1970, it was projected to have increased to 4,529 
vehicles per day, close to doubling the 1960 level. By 
L975, this may increase to 6,500 average vehicles per 

day, or 10,075 vehicles per day during the high season 

28/ 

summer months. 

Californians represent the largest single source of 

out-of-state visitors coming to Utah, and the largest 

29/ 
single source of revenue dollars. In 1965, 36% 

of total visitors to Utah were from California, 

28 / 

— Based on a 1960-155% of the yearly average for a 

July day. Utah State Department of Highway. 



29/ 

Recreation in Utah, Profile of the Demand for Outdoor 

Recreation by Out-of-State Travelers to Utah. 

J. S. Perry - Univ. of Utah, 1967. 

59 



providing the State with 43% of its tourist revenue. 
These people showed a high preference for four areas - 
Cedar Breaks, Lake Powell, Capital Reef and Dead Horse 
Point - all located in Southern Utah. 

Forty-two percent of visitors came from Northern, 

Southern, and midwestern regions of the Nation, providing 

30/ 
Utah with 40% of its visitor revenues. Northern 

visitors showed a preference for the Great Salt Lake, 

Salt Lake City, Bryce Canyon, Bonneville Salt Flats and 

Zion National Park, but were less inclined to visit 

Lake Powell or Cedar Breaks. 



30/ 

— Ibid 



60 






( 






1 1 lust rat inn 3 






■ 



> tR'flK'iH 



■ '-<■-. 






P ™ ....... m a a 





'^ " » - - ..j-ct^-.^. — "- '■ ■ ■■■ '■ > * ' n r- '■■' " ■-■-• >" — i — -■* - ■ ■ ■» ~- 



\ i* 



,4 I 



■* 



• 







" Ci * <\ 'J 





z&<im& 



J.MTV I I HHlllliriiMMXt— 



If ,; "' 



J ■ in. n ii i «^»n«A ".n ii in ' ill I — - - 1 1 1 ii - - 



I in ■ I If •■ ' ..-.—. • Tfrlurl 




61 



( 









Midwestern visitors showed a high preference for 
Dinosaur National Monument and Bingham Copper Mines, 
but were less interested in Zion National Park, Bryce 
Canyon and Lake Powell. 

Southern visitors showed a preference for Cedar Breaks, 
and Bonneville Salt Flats. Only 14% of visitors came 
from adjacent states. Their preference was strong 
for Flaming Gorge and Capital Reef, less so for Lake 
Powell and Zion National Park which was next to bottom. 

From June 1969 through May 1970 out-of-state visitors 
traveling by motor vehicles brought $11,625,900 in 

revenue to Washington County, second only to Salt Lake 

32/ 

County, and three times that of Kane County. Trans- 
portation, food and lodging industries received 84% of 
the monies spent by visitors during this period. These 
industries, studies have shown, will likely benefit 
most from the rapid growth of tourism for the years ahead, 

At this point, it may be advantageous to explore Utah 

tourism from an economic standpoint by analyzing 

relationships in income levels to types of accommodations 

31/ 

~ Ibid. 

32/ 

Utah Travel Council. 



62 



sought, kinds of recreation preferred, party expendi- 
tures, etc., in an attempt to better understand its 
present and projected impact on the economy within the 
Golden Circle of Scenic and Recreation Areas. 

Studies on recreation in Utah show that out-of-state 
visitors on vacation trips preferred outdoor accommoda- 
tions over the motel-hotel type accommodation. Income 
levels (See Table XXI ) had a direct bearing on types 
of accommodations preferred within the lower income 
brackets clearly desiring outdoor accommodations. 
Surprisingly, a preference for outdoor accommodations 
extended into the $14,000 income level, however, 
manifested in the more formal trailer-camper types. 
Analysis between preference and actual use accommoda- 
tions shows a high correlation, but apparently due to 
a lack of facilities or change of plans, shifts of 
preference are reflected from outdoor type accommodations 
to indoor types. (See Table XXII, ) 



63 



. r 



'•: 



TABLE XXI 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INCOME CLASS AND PREFERENCE 
IN EACH TYPE OF ACCOMMODATIONS! 7 



CAMP OUT /MAKE OWN CAMP 
TRAILER/CAMPER 
CAMP IN SPECIAL GROUNDS 
MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS 
ONLY 

COMBINATION OF ACCOMMO- 
DATIONS 



CAMP IN SPECIAL GROUNDS 
CAMP OUT/MAKE OWN CAMP 
TRAILER/CAMPER 
COMBINATION OF ACCOMMO- 
DATIONS 

MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS 
ONLY 



TRAILER/CAMPER 
COMBINATION OF ACCOMMO- 
DATIONS 

CAMP IN SPECIAL GROUNDS 
MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS 
ONLY 
CAMP OUT/MAKE OWN CAMP 



MOTELS AND RESTAURANTS 
ONLY 

COMBINATION OF ACCOMMO- 
DATIONS 

CAMP OUT/MAKE OWN CAMP 
TRAILER/CAMPER 
CAMP IN SPECIAL GROUNDS 



$() -$4,99 9 Inco m e Clas s 






$5,OOQ-$9,999 Income Class 



- 










SI (),()()()- SI 4, 9 99 Inco'iif: CI as s 

T_ M im Wk MM), "«**». »1>*. -WCt* «r> *SX* - JM*. •■ 








$15,000+ Income Class 



h 



'■y>mwm 



■ - -. 



0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 
Note : Graphs indicate the percentage of preference 
within each accommodation by income class. They do 
not indicate the percentage of an income class pre- 
ferring a type of accommodations. Assuming each 
income class is a certain percentage of that total 
survey, comparison of interest level by accommoda- 
tion by class can be made. 



1/ q 

— bource : 



Recreation in Utah, a profile of the demand for outdoor recreation 
by Out-of-State Travelers in Utah. J. S. Peery et al, Univ. of 
Utah 1967. 



64 



i 



«5ii P 



TABLK XXII 

PREFERRED ACCOMMODATIONS AND ACTUAL ACCOMMODATIONS 

USED BY OUT-OF-STATE VISITORS TO UTAH 

Preferred Actual 

Accommodations (Percent) ( Percent ) 

Campout 38 31 

Motel, Hotel 33 48 

Combination of Accommodations 29 21 

Source: Recreation in Utah, a profile of the demand for outdoor 

recreation by out-of-state travelers to Utah. J. S. Peery 
et al, Univ. of Utah 1967 

Vacationing resident families seem to prefer motel and restaurant 

accommodations over the outdoor types preferred by out-of-state 

vacationing visitors. In 1964, 7 5% of money spent by Utah residents 

on vacation trips was spent outside the state creating a lower total 

income for Utah citizens. This amounted to $42 million spent outside 

the state and only $14 million was spent in the state. AAJ 

Out-of-state visitors seem to prefer touring related activities the 
most. Driving for sightseeing, visiting historical sites, and photo- 
graphy account for a major share of recreation activies. See Table XXIII, 



33/ Recreation in Utah, a profile of the demand for outdoor recreation by 
Utah residents. R. C. Richardson et al . Univ. of Utah 1966. 



65 



■ . f 



TABLE XXIII 
PARTICIPATION IN OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITIES 

BY VISITORS COMING TO UTAH 

Percent 



Vacati on 


77 


51 


40 


51 


19 


25 


39 


5 


2 


5 


3 



Visitors Business & 
Activity Business Only Pass in g Through P leasure 

Sightseeing 33 52 71 

Historical Sites 18 35 56 

Picnicking 14 17 35 

Photography 13 30 44 

Swimming 12 7 22 

Hiker 7 4 17 

Camping 4 15 19 

Boating 4 -- 4 

Waterskiing 3 -- 1 

Horseback Riding 3 2 7 

.> 

M 

J%; G olfing 1 -j. 4 

Source: Recreation in Utah, a profile of the demand for outdoor recreation 

by out-of-state travelers in Utah. J. S. Peery et al. Univ. of Utah 
1967. 

Table XXIV shows the relationship between type of outdoor recreation 

activity engated in and type of accommodations used. Forty percent or 

more of out-of-state visitors that participated in sightseeing, visiting 

historical sites, photography and golfing utilized motels. Visitors that 

came to camp, picnic, hike, fish, hunt and waterski predominately preferred 

outdoor accommodations. 

An analysis of average party expenditures in relation to type of outdoor 

activities that were engaged in showed parties engaged in golfing spent 

more pi i trip Llinn parlies engaged In oLlu'i activities. Sightseeing, 

visiting historical sites, photography were quite low in per trip expendi- 

tures while horseback riding, boating, fishing and hunting expenditures 

66 



>< 




CQ 




Q 




W 




M 


CO 


fa 


2 


H- 1 


o 


CO 


h-l 


CO 


H 


< 


< 


.J 


Q 


U 


O 






K 


6 


M 


u 


> 


< 


1— 1 




H 


fa 


U 


o 


> < 




i—i 


CO 


>< a: 


w 


■I o 


Cm 


:* o 


>> 


. Q 


H 


m g 


Q 


< o 


W 


H 


H 


33 


U 


CJ 


w 


< 


fa3 


z 


O 


M 


2 




i— i 


o 


CO 


2 


33 


IH 




o 


z 


<c 


O 


o 


I— ) 


z 


H 


w 


BJ 




O 


CO 


CM 


a! 


o 


O 


od. 


H 


fa 



co 



CO 



cO 

c 

•l-l 

X) 
E 

c 
u 



o 

-i C 

cu o> 
u 

O S-. 

33 fa 



0) 0) 
4-1 4J 

o o 
tvz. 



a) 

4-1 

o 
33 



01 

> 

C 4-1 

0) co 

H i—l 
S-J (L) 
fa OS 



3 

G 

a 

E 
cO 
U 



.-( 0) 
CQX) 

■P E 
O 3 
H 2 



CO 



P*> 



u 

< 



lO 



JZ> 



in 



as 

CN 



O 



CN 



co 



o 



CN 



o> 



CO 



co 






CN 



co 



CO 

CO 



<t 



CO 
M3 



CO 



CN 



00 



O 

CM 



00 



co 



co 

00 



CN 



CO 



d 



o 

co 



CN 



CO 



CM 






CO 



O -< 



^M 



CN 



2= 



d 



CM 

CO 



co 



CN 




<f 


a> 


• 


< 


• 


• 


.— I 


z 


•—> 


CM 



lO .—I 

co r- 



O 

CN 



CN 
CN 






co 

CN 



LO 



o- 



o 



r- 



LO 






lO 
CM 



00 
CO 



LO 



CO 



CO 



^o 






LO 



00 
CN 



<D 



00 
CM 



CN 



CO 



CO 
CM 



v£5 
CO 



CO 
CO 



CO 

CO 









CN <Q O CO <t 

r-H O r"H «-< <T 



o 

CN 



o 



\0 


o 


ON 


vO 


CN 


<r 


t3> 


<r 


0~> 


CO 


LO 


LO 


o 


CO 


i— i 


co 


0> 


co 


CO 


r- 


r- 


o> 


r-- 


<r 


<* 


o> 


a> 


r- 


vC 


<r 


CO 


. — i 


r- 1 









vX) 



CN 
CM 



LO 



< 



< 
2 



00 
CN 



LO 



LO 

CO 



v£> 



CN 
CN 





L0 
















GO 










1) 
















C 










J-J 
















•H 










•H 
















T3 










CO 
















•ft 






M 


00 




J>1 














a! 






c 


c 


1 — 1 


x; 


ao 


















•H 


•H 


CO 


a 


C 












^ 






•H 


QJ 


(J 


CO 


•H 






M 






CJ 






^ 


0) 


•H 


L-l 


^ 


DO 




C 


M 


OXi 


cO 


00 


oO 


CO 


CD 


^J 


OD 


u 


c 


ao 


•H 


c 


c 


_o 


C 


C 




4-1 


o 


o 


•H 


•H 


c 


E 


•l-l 


■H 


01 


•H 


•H 


r-l 


J3 


4-1 


4-1 


C 


a 


•r-l 


E 


4J 


,c 


L0 


4J 


LW 


1) 


60 


L0 





u 


E 


^ 


•r-( 


c 


L0 


Lj 


<0 


1— 1 


4-1 


•H 


•i-l 


4^ 


•H 


cO 


•r-( 


s 


3 


•h 


O 


O 


o 


CO 


CO 


ffi 


fa 


fa 


U 


3C 


CO 


I 


fa 


33 


OQ 


O 


^s 



00 

CO 



CO 
> 

< 



o 






o 

4-) 
CO 

u 

<u 

I— I 

0) 

> 

CO 

J-4 
4-1 



M-l 

o 



o 
>, 

c 
o 



CO 
CD 
S-i 

o 

0) 
!-< 

o 
o 
-a 

4-1 

O 

J-i 

o • 

C "H 

cO 
E 43 



0) 

-a 

CD 
JC 
4-1 



CO 



<4-4 • 

o > 

•H 

dJ c 

•H 

M-l " 

O —I 

!-4 co 

a 

4-1 

CO 01 



JZ 


>> 


CO 


Sj 


4-J 


OJ 


3 


a) 




fa 


c 




•H 


• 




CO 


c 




o 


• 


•H 


^ 


4-1 




CO 




0) 


• 


S-I 


rfi 


o 


cO 


o> 


4-1 


c< 


Z2 


0) 




CJ 




S-I 




3 




a 




CO 





67 



( 



• 



per party per trip were quite high. This may partially be explained by 
the growing demand for outdoor recreation activities by the middle and 
high middle income brackets. 

The reader should bear in mind that these activities represent common 
activities engaged in by parties, although they may have engaged in 
other activities during their stay in Utah. See Table XXV. 

TABLE XXV 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARTY EXPENDITURE AND 
TYPE OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ACTIVITY 

Weighted Average Party 
A c tivi ty Expenditure per Trip 

Golfing $ 255.26 

Skiing 239.58 

Horseback Riding 229.56 

Boating 210.63 

Fishing 191. HO 

Hunting 190.67 

Water Skiing 171.05 

Hiking 154.67 

Swimming 143.63 

Picnicking 130.41 

Photography 126.06 

Historical Sites 121.22 

Camping 1 21 . 10 

Sightseeing 121.07 

Source: Recreation in Utah, a profile of the demand for outdoor 

recreation by out-of-state travelers to Utah. J. S. Peery 
et al, Univ. of Utah 1967. 



68 



c 






i 



TABLE XXVI 

1965 

YEARLY FAMILY INCOME 
(Percent) 

Yearly Income All Visitors Except Skiing 

Ten thru $2,000 2 

$2,000 to $3,999 3 

$4,000 to $5,999 9 

$6,000 to $7,999 18 

$8,000 to $9,999 18 

$10,000 to $14,999 30 

Over $15,000 20 

100 

Average U.S. Family Income in 1965 - $8,700 



Source: Recreation in Utah, a profile of the demand for outdoor 

recreation by out-of-state travelers to Utah. J. S. Peery 
et al, Univ. of Utah 1967. 

Over the next decade, recreation demand in Washington County will increase 
only to the extent that facilities are developed or improved to make 
recreation attractive for visitors. See Table XXVII. To meet this 
challenge, the County will be forced to respond to new Interstate 15 
Highway bypass through St. George, new access roads, the Dixie Reclam- 
ation Project, the Gunlock Dam Project and natural and historic sites 
in its exploitation of its posi tion or gateway to Southern Utah. 

Recreation and tourism in the District Statistical Region is covered 
under the Natural Resource Section. See Page 81. 



69 



( 









> 



i 



TABLE XXVII 
RECREATION POTENTIAL APPRAISAL 
WASHINGTON COUNTY, UTAH 



Vacation C a bins, Cot- 
tages and Homesites 

Camping Grounds 
Vacation Site 
Pack Trip 
Transient 

Picnic 

Fishing Waters 
Warm Water 
Cold Water 

Golf Courses 

Hunting Areas 
Small Game 
Big Game 
Waterfowl 

Natural Areas 
Scenic Areas 
Historical Anas 

Riding Stables 

Shooting Preserves 

Vacation Farms 
Ranches 

Water Sports 

Winter Sports 







50 



95 



140 



Low 



Medium 



_Hi£h_ 



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 



X 

x 

x 

- --x 

x 

x 



x 

x 

x 

-- X 

x 

x 



x 

x 

x 

X 







Source: Appraisal of potentials for outdoor recreation developments, 
Washington Count, Utah. County Technical Act inn Panel, 19o8, 






70 



-..> 



4. Forestry 

The economy of Kane County has historically been 
long dependent on the forestry industry. Saw timber 
is harvested from National Forest lands located 
primarily in Garfield and Coconino Counties. In 
1970, only 11.7 million board feet was harvested 
from National Forest lands within the County. Lumber 
mills located in Panguitch, Escalante, Utah and Fredonia, 
Arizona process the timber. The number of people employed 
in these mills vary from 450 during the winter to 550 for 
the remainder of the year. 

The 1966-1968 average yearly sale of juniper posts and 
Christmas trees from BLM lands amounted to 18,875 
juniper posts and 112 pinon pine Christmas tree 
permi ts . 

TABLE XXVIII 
TOTAL FOREST PRODUCTS FROM PUBLIC LANDS - 1970 



Commercial Juniper Christmas 
C ounty Timber Posts Joshua 

(MBF) (No.) Trees Cordwood Trees Cactii 



K ane County 
National F< 
BLM 18,875-- 112 -- NA NA 



National Forests 11.7 NA 40 



Washington County 

National Forests 6,460 575 35 

BLM 1,436 280 25 78 6 

Statistical Region 

National Forests 49-50', 335 1,310 320 

BLM ( ) 5 a 9 2 5 336 8 1 1 

NA - Not Available. Includes both Free Use and Sales. 

\J 1966-68 average figure. 

71 



I 



( 



Forestry in Washington County today is insignificant. 
No merchantable saw timber is cut as was done in the 
past. About 7,900 cedar posts and 855 Christmas trees 
are cut each year. A growing demand for Joshua trees 
and Barrel Cacti is becoming important for landscape 
purposes. This may constitute a small but growing 
segment of the forestry product market in the future 
from State and Public lands. 

Timber products harvested on National Forest lands and 
milled in Fredonia provide the largest single source of 
revenue in the Statisitcal Region. Forty-nine to fifty 
million board feet of Ponderosa Pine, White Fire, Douglas 
, ; Fir, and Engleman Spruce are harvested each year. Gross 

income from this production amounts to about three- 
ml lH„n dollars annually. The Kaibnb Lumber Company 
estimates there are 20-25 years of timber reserves 
remaining in the North Kaibab Forest. 

Based on past patterns, the Kaibab Lumber Company is 
planning to increase production to 52-53 million board 
feet annually in the next 4-5 years over the present 
45-50 million board feet level. 

Colorado City operates a small lumber mill for lumber 
harvested from the Mt. Trumbull area of the Kaibab 
National Forest. For the past six of seven years, about 
{ one-half million board feet of lumber has been taken 

annually from this area. 

72 



m 



There is no saw timber harvested off BLM lands. A 
small quantity of Juniper and Christmas trees are 
harvested each year. See Forest Products Section 
under Public Land Resources. 

Over th e next ten years, greater and greater demands 
will be placed on the lumber industry in this area. As 
in the past, timber will have to be harvested from 
National Forest lands located in Garfield and Coconino 
Counties . 



73 



A I 

'.■■ v III. Public Land Resources 

This section examines the present and projected magnitude of 
BLM resources, and attempts to measure the economic impact of 
these resources to initial users and contribution made by each 
to personal income in the local economy. 

Techniques have not been developed to measure all values of 
public domain resources. For example, there are many aesthetic 
and open space values such as archaeological, historical, archi- 
tectural and scenic sites, etc. that cannot be measured under 
present technology. Other values cannot be measured in traditional 
economic terms but must be evaluated on non- economic terms. The 
Agriculture Section expands this subject in depth. Some measure- 

■ , ments fit only a specific area, lacking relevancy to broader 

J 

application or scope in other areas. For example, a 25 sector 
multiplier model generated for Hoboken, Alaska would have 
limited applicability to measuring economic activity in Pagosa 
Springs, Colorado, although it may be the only data available 
and some similarities are found to exist between the two areas. 
To rely on multipliers from this area without trade coefficient 
comparisons may be dangerous and misleading. The same applies 
to broad income multipliers on a state or regional level, where 
one tries to custom fit these to localized conditiens. 

Findings in this section may be useful to the Resource Manager 
in facilitating sound decision making, until better techniques 



74 



are developed and additional data of a more relevant nature 
becomes available to supplement or compliment that which is 
reflected. 

Three groups are considered in this supplement. BLM, initial 
users and community impact users. Each of these groups may 
place different values in a resource which is reflected where 
data is available. 
A. Livestock Forage- 

1 . Monetary Value of Livestoc k Grazing to BLM 

In 1970, at 44C per AUM, 212,043 AUM- s of forage were 
sold under Section 3 Permits, that brought approximately 
$93,299 in grazing fees. 

2 . Dependence of Permittees on BLM Forage 

There are 168 permittees in the District using BLM forage. 
It is estimated that 14% of the permittees are dependent on 
BLM for 15% or less of their total livestock feed, 40% of 
the permittees are dependent on BLM for 16 to 50% of their 
total livestock feed, while 46% of the permittees obtain 
51% or more of their feed from the BLM. 

3. Dependence of L ivestock Industry on BLM Forage 

Almost 36 percent of livestock feed consumed in the Kane 
and Washington Community Impact Area is obtained from BLM 
lands on Section 3 Grazing Permits, See Appendix A. Over 
76% of livestock feed consumed in the Statistical Region 
is obtained from BLM Section 3 Grazing Lands. 



75 



4. Monetary V a lue of BLM Forage to L ivestock Indust ry 
Based on an estimated current market value of $3.50 per 
AUM, the 212,043 AUM's of BLM forage sold in 1970 had 

a monetary value of $742,151 to the livestock industry. 

5 . M one La ry V a lu e of BLM Forage to Loca 1 Conununi Ly 

In 1964, the sale of livestock raised on BLM forage 

created an estimated $182,919 in personal income, or 

about $1.14 per AUM. The value of agricultural products 

is not available for a later date. 

6 . D ependence of Loca 1 Communi ty on BL M F orage 

In 1964, personal income generated in the District by 
the sale of livestock raised on BLM forage was 1.7% 
of the total personal income in the area. 

7 . Bench Mark Pro jection s 

Total livestock feed consumption in the District is 
projected to increase 15% between 1970 and 1980. 
Much of this increase is based on intensive management 
extending over approximately 907, of the area where 
overuse and watershed problems have occurred. BLM 
forage production in this period would have to increase 
from 212,043 to 243,380 AUM's. See Illustration 4. 



76 



Demand over the next ten years will most probably 
exceed this production increase by 10%. This demand 
is based on projected population increases and present 
levels of beef consumption. 

In Utah, production of cattle and calves has been 
increasing - in fact about 6% between 1960 and 1965. 
In Arizona, beef production increased over 27% in the 
past decade while cattle slaughtered, over 108% in the 
same period. Most cattle raised on the Arizona Strip 
is marketed through Utah, however, ii would be reasonabl 
to believe that a shift in marketing could be affected 
based on supply and demand conditions. 

Any revolutionary changes in the production, marketing, 
(or than that mentioned), consumer damand, or foreign 
tariff changes are not considered and are beyond the 
scope iA~ t li i s study. 

The 39,512 AUM' s reflect forage that could have been 
used, but was deferred for conservation purposes, 
annual fluctuation of livestock operations, financial 
and other reasons beyond the control of the licensees. 
A good 30- 50% of these AUM' s represent an overage of 
grazing capacity that could be taken under good manage- 
ment practices. H e nce, the AUM' s are probably present, 
but not in keeping with good range mansgement practices 
to improve range and watershed resources. 

77 



7 



B. Recreation 



1 . Deer Hunting 

(a ) Dependence of Deer Hunters on BLM Deer Habitat 
Based on the 1967-68 hunt data, there was an average 
of 29,507 deer hunter days spent in the Statistical 
Region, of which 34% of these hunter days that can 
be attributed BLM Deer Habitat Range, generating 
10,032 average BLM hunter days. 

( b ) M onetary Value of BLM-JBased Deer Hunting to Hunters 

A hunter day Is worth about $5.00 to n deer hunter 

34/ 
in the District. The monetary value of BLM based 

hunting to the hunters is an estimated $50,160 (10,032 

hunter days X $5.00). 

(c ) Monetary Value of BLM-Based Deer Hunting to Local 
Communi ty 

The average annual number of non-local hunter days 
in the District Statistical Region for the years 
1967-68 was 28,032 hunter days. (See Appendix B). 
About 34% of these hunter days or 9531 hunter days 
may be attributed to BLM lands. If the average non- 
local hunter spends $10.00 per day, and if each 
dollar of output demanded creates an additional 
$.92 in personal income, then BLM based hunting 






34/. 



This is a conservative figure based on the lonj 
distances one must travel to hunt the District, 



7K 



( 



generated about $182,995 to the two community impact 
areas. This figure means that for each day spent in 
the field by a non-local hunter, $19.19 in personal 
income is generated to the local community (182,995 -*• 
9531 ). 

( d ) Dependence of Local Communities on BLM-Based Deer 
Hunting 

Total personal income in the two community impact areas 
for 1968 was $24,912,251. The average annual amount 
of personal income generated by hunting deer on BLM 
based lands in the District for the years 1967-68 was 
approxima te ly 0.7% of this amount. 

(e ) Bench Mark Projections 

Big game hunting license sales in Arizona are expected 
to increase not more than 10% over present levels during 
the next decade. 

Deer hunting pressure in the District Statistical 

Region is expected to increase from a level of 2500 

35/ 
hunters to a maximum of 5,000 hunters in 1980. — This 

would mean a jump using 1967-68 average figures from 

29,507 hunter days to 59,014 hunter days by 1980 - a 

100% increase. 

35/ 

Source: Levi Packard, State Fish and Game Department, 

79 



t 



.' 



If the BLM was to provide the same proportion of 
hunter days in 1980 as it did in 1967-68, 20,065 
hunter days would be spent on public dominion lands. 
It is doubtful that BLM resources can handle this 
type of pressure without some permanent damage being 
done to the area. It may be that decreased hunter 
success levels from increased pressures on deer 
population will reduce the influx of hunters, or 
thai the (!<• vc 1 oprnenl of campgrounds could alleviate 
the pressures placed on natural resources by con- 
centrating hunters. 

2 . Other Big Game Hunting 

The District provides habitat for antelope and desert big 
horn sheep hunting, however their numbers and/or habitat 
are too small to provide hunting that would be of economic 
significance to the local community. Turkey are hunted in 
conjunction with deer in the Kaibab National Forest, but 
again are so few in number that they are of negligible 
economic value to the community. 

3 . Upland Game Birds and Small Game Hunting 

Upland game birds and small game are hunted in the 
Statistical Region, but the distance from large metropo- 
litan areas is sufficiently great that hunting pressure is 
light, limiting the economic impact on the local community 



HO 



» 



to a negligible figure. Often these game species are 
hunting in conjunction with deer. 

4 . General Recreation (Non-hunting Outdoor Recreation 
Act ivi ties ) 
( a ) Present Recreation Use : 

The District Statistical Region abounds in specta- 
cular scenery and historical sites for the non-hunter 
visitor. Principal recreation activities range from 
sightseeing, camping, hiking, boating, and horseback 
riding to guided Lours and forma] talks. The vast 
majority of these activities center around the Grand 
Canyon, Glen Canyon Recreation Area, Kaibab National 
Forest and Pipe Springs National Monument. 

Principal recreation activities on BLM lands center 
around hiking, camping, rockhounding and sightseeing. 
There are no developed campgrounds on Public Domain 
lands . 



The only area that has received publicized attention 
is the Paria Primitive Area which drew a 1,000 
visitor days in 1970. Black Rock Mountain, covered 
with Ponderosa Pine, is another special attraction 
widely known but little used other than by hunters, 
due to a lack of good access roads. 



( 







District recreation use records are limited to hunter 
day information and eleven traffic counters strategi- 
cally placed throughout the area. Trend data from 
these traffic counters is not available. Estimated 
two-way traffic on a monthly basis taken from 1969 
data is shown below: 

TABLE XXIX 

TRAFFIC COUNTER S 

Total Average 

Counter Locat ion- Road Vehicle/Month 



"Taint t ho Pondorosn" 418 

State Line Highway 64 ( )'37 

Temple Trail, South of Navajo Trail 65* 

Point of Rocks, Clayhole Road 600 

Kaibab Indian Boundary-Mt. Trumbull 953 



*Low reading due to southbound traffic turning east-west on Navajo 
Trail 



Total Non-hunting outdoor recreation in the District 

Statistical Region in 196 c ) was 1,200,476 recreation 

36/ 
days. — This included 1,193,476 visitor days spent 

on National Forest and Park Service lands. BLM 

lands received only 6,000 visitor days of this total. 



( b ) Monetary Value of BLM Based Recreation to Users 
Based on an estimated market value of $1.00 per 

visitor day, the 6,000 visitor days on BLM lands in 

36/ c 

— borne agencies use visits, others visitor days - both are encompassed 

under Senate Document #97" s Recreation Day which are added together 

and used here . 

82 



1969 had a monetary value of $6,000 to recreationists . 
A market value figure of $1.00 is used as an entrance 
fee equivalent that a recreationist would be willing 
to pay if there were no free recreation lands in the 
area . 

( c ) Monetary Value of BLM Based Recreation to Local Community 
If the average visitor spends $6.23 per day in the local 
community and if each dollar outlay demanded creates an 
addii Ional 92C in personal income to the community, then 
District BLM Based Recreation created about $71,770 in 
the local communities. 

(d ) Dependence of Recreationist on BLM Lands 

It is estimated that about 0.5% of non-hunting outdoor 
recreation occurs on BLM administered lands within the 
District Statistical Region. 

(e ) Benchmark Projections 

Appreciable visitor day increases in the District will 
depend largely on Utah State, National Park and Forest 
Service outdoor recreation visitor increases and their 
ability to accommodate these visitors, coupled with 
development of access roads and recreation facilities 
on BLM lands to handle a projected overflow due to over- 
crowded conditions in the above-mentioned areas followed 
with a demand created by these visitors in the following 
years. The National Park Service forecasts a 141% 
increase in visits to the Glen Canvon National Recreation 

83 



- 

Areas between 1970 and 1979. Visits to the Grand 
Canyon and Pipe Springs are expected to increase 
42% and 32% respectively over the same period. 
For the National Park System this represents a 
total 7(>7, increase in visits to these areas. The 
North Kaibab National Forest is anticipating a 100% 
increase in visitor days over the same period. 
This is not an unreasonable figure for during the 
peak of the 1970 summer, overcrowding of campgrounds 
was so cril Leal that they wern turning an estimated 
] ono visitors away daily. (See Table XXX). 

Persons who havr> used these recreation areas freely 
j in the past may find that reservations are required 

in future visits. Overcrowding has become such a 
problem in the Grand Canyon National Park that six 
campgrounds will use a regi st ration- reservation 
system at certain critical periods of the holiday 
season. The Forest Service has not contemplated 
going to a reservation system, but they conceded that 
this may be a very possible future consideration. 

Outdoor recreation demands may far exceed present 
expectations on BLM lands if the National economy 
keeps pace with that of the mid-sixties. With an 
anticipated spillover of visitors from both State 



m 



-. ; 



84 



- 









X 
X 



X! 

XI 
< 



C/3 



<D 
i-i 

O 



CO 

Cm 



CO 

2: 



(V 

x 



en 

CO 

cu 

< 

c 



o 
a 

0) 



o 



CD 

CO 
CI 

0) 

o 
b 

CO 
CU 



c 

H 





r» 


Q 


CM 


. 

CO 


a> 


• 


• 


• 


• 


r^ 


<f 


LO 


r- 


CM 


a> 


CT 


<r 


CO 


X 


. — i 


CM 


ro 




X 




^C 


CM 


CM 


r-» 


00 


. 


• 


• 


. 


r^ 


<r 


CM 


X 


_- 1 


CT> 


X> 


<r 


CO 


CO 




eg 


n 




X 




CN 


<r 


CM 


Q 


r^ 


• 


• 


• 


• 


r^ 


■o*- 


q-n 


m 


m 


G^ 


CM 


CO 


CO 


X 




CT> 


CT- 
CN 




m 




r^ 


x 


CM 


r~- 


vO 


• 


• 


• 


. 


r- 


x> 


X 


<J 


,— * 


CTn 


r^ 


CO 


CO 


<r 


■— 1 


r- 


00 




in 




1-1 


CN 








in 


'/, 


c 1 


vO 


in 


• 


• 


. 


. 


i 


in 


CO 


CO 


^_i 


O' 


CM 


CO 


CO 


O 


. — i 


x* 


1 - 




m 




—* 


"J 








r-~ 


Q 


CN 


<r 


<r 


• 


• 


• 


• 


i - 


CO 


. — 1 


CN 


<r 


a. 


i - 


CO 


CO 


X 




<r 


X 

CN 




<T 




. — i 


CM 


CM 


Q 


co 


• 


• 


• 


• 


r-» 


-t 


00 


i — i 


o 


Q~N 


CN 


CM 


CO 


CO 




ro 


in 

CM 




<t 




Q 


-T 


CM 


CM 


CM 


o 


• 


• 


• 


r- 


Ch 


in 


O 


X 


c^ 


r^ 


CM 


CO 


0> 


. — i 


. — i 


CM 




CO 




r^- 


vO 


CM 


r^ 


i — i 


• 


• 


• 


• 


r^ 


o 


CM 


o> 


X 


CJ> 


<j- 


CM 


CM 


X 




2 


CO 
CN 




CO 




LO 


X 


CN 


CO 


O 


• 


• 


• 


, 


r-« 


o 


cr- 


00 


i — i 


c^ 


< — 1 


.— i 


CM 


<r 


. — 1 


a^ 


CM 
CM 




CO 






\ 










% 




j-J 

en 






*L, 




CD 






c 


en 


o 


CO 


C 





&0 


Cu 


cu 


o 


>\ 


C 




S-i 


>-, 


c 


•H 


XI 


< 


c 


CO 


J-j 


CO 




CO 


u 


p 


X 




u 


TJ 


CO 


■H 

CO 




c 


c 


o 


u. 




(U 


CO 


a 






< — 1 


J-i 


■H 


• 




o 


CD 


Cu 


•z 



< 

CO 
■H 

c 

X) 

0) 

Cu 



c 

CO 
OS 



en 

Oj 
J-. 
C 

cu 



CO 

2: 

x 

CO 

X 
•H 

CO 



u 

CO 
Cu 





OS 


.. 


X 


(U 


4-1 


O 


O 


U 


CQ 


3 







\ 


'S> 


-•1 



85 



and National Park and Forest lands, and resultant 
demand created especially with the implementation of 
the Virgin Canyon and Black Rock Mountain campsites, 
and Vermillion Interpretative Site, a 85% increase 
in visitor days is conservatively projected through 
1 ( )(S(). This would bring Lhe visitor days spent in the 
District up to 11,100 by 1980. This figure was kept 
conservative due to the general lack of good access 
roads into the area that will limit visitor day 
increases . 

C. Minerals 

Over the last seventy years, many mineral deposits have been 
located in the District Statistical Region, but few have been 
in commercial quantities that could be successfully produced. 
Gypsum, lead, uranium, copper, picture stone, sand and gravel, 
and even an alleged sample of crude oil have all been located 
but technological and economic changes will have to occur 
before most of these are developed successfully. 

At present the, only mineral of economic value to the District 
Statistical Region is sand and gravel production, however, the 
State Selection Program has taken over most sand and gravel 
producing areas from Public Domain lands. 

1 . Monetary Value of BLM Sand and Gravel to BLM & Initial Users 
Most BLM production has been on a free use basis rather than 



86 



from sales. In 1968 200 cubic yards of sand and gravel 
were sold at IOC per cubic yard, bringing $20.00 to the BLM. 

2 . Dependence of Industry on BLM Sand and Gravel 

In 1968, the Arizona Highway Department took approximately 
140,186 tons of sand and gravel on a free use permit to 
surface the Colorado City to Pipe Springs Road, and seal 
coat the Marble Canyon to Fredonia road. Another 28,000 
tons have been committed on a free use permit to surface 
Interstate 15 Highway from Littlefield to St. George. This 
represents 73.17, of the sand and gravel produced in 1968 
from BLM Lands in the District Statistical Region. 

Sand and gravel sales play an important part in the local 
construction industry. However, most of the demand for it 
is satisfied from production in Kane and Washington Counties. 
Some sand and gravel is produced principally on a free use 
basis for local consumption in the Fredonia Area. In 1969 
Kaibab Industries contracted for 500 cu. yds. of borrow 
gravel that brought $30.00 in sales. 

3 . M onetary Value of BLM Sand and Gra v el in Loc a l Communit y 
Sand and gravel production has played an important part 
in road construction work in both Coconino and Mohave 
Counties. But determination of a monetary value of this 
resource to the local community is most difficult and at this 
writing is not available. 

87 



4 . Benchmark Projections 

Future sand and gravel sales may center around the proposed 
power and transmission line project tentatively projected 
to cross the District. Sales may amount to approximately 
148,000 cu. yds. or $14,800 at 8C per cu. yd. This demand 
is expected to last through 1980-85. 

D. Timber and Ot h er Woodland Products 

The economies of Kane County and the District Statistical 
Region are based largely on Lumber Production. In 1969, 
approximately 45-50 million board feet of commercial timber 
were harvested by Kaibab Lumber Industries off the North 
Kaibab National Forest. Another one-half million board feet 
were taken off Mt. Trumbull by Colorado City contractors. 
The principal timber species harvested are Ponderosa Pine, 
White fir, Douglas fir, and Englemann spruce. 

There is no commercial timber harvested on BLM administered 
lands. One or two small stands of Ponderosa Pine are found 
within the District, but present plans call for protection 
of this timber for aesthetic and recreation purposes. Present 
production of forestry products in the District center around 
the sale and issuance of free use permits for Juniper posts, 
firewood, Christmas trees and desert plants. See Table XXXI. 



88 



i 



TABL E XXXI 

1 970 Woodland Products Harvested 

Free Use Sol d Monetary Valu e 

Juniper Posts 3700 2225 $ 260.00 

Christmas Trees 97 239 95.00 

Fuel Wood -- 8 Cords 6.00 

Cactus -- 1 1.00 

Joshua Tree -- 1 5.00 

1 . Monetary Value of B L M Woodland P roducts to BLM and Initial 
User s 

Since salable Juniper posts are sold at market value, the 
monetary value to BLM and initial users are the same. At 
a market value of 12C (10C in one sale) per Juniper post, 
the 2225 posts sold in 1970 had a market value of $260.00. 
Daring the same year, 239 Christmas trees were sold at 40C 
each bringing $95.00 to the BLM. The market value to the 
initial users is estimated to be $5.00 per tree or $1195 
for the total. See Table above for other wood products. 

2 . Dependence of Industry on BL M Woo d Products 

It is estimated that 91% of the 24,821 Juniper posts sold 
in the two Community Impact areas in 1970 were harvested 
from BLM administered lands. In the District Statistical 
Region, over 90% of Juniper posts sold came from BLM lands, 
Forty-five percent of Juniper post free use permits come 
from BLM lands. 

89 



~. .-' 



Christmas tree sales from BLM lands amounted to approxi- 
mately 117, of total Christmas tree sales from public land 
resources, but 100% on a free use basis. 

3 . Monetary Value of BLM Wood Products to the Local Community 
The production of Juniper posts from Public Domain lands 
contribute very little in monetary value to the local 
community. More and more steel posts are used today in 
fence construction therefore possibly creating a limited 
future for wooden posts. 

Christmas tree sales are basically in the same category of 
limited market value and future. They contribute probably 
somewhere around 0.04% to total personal income at a $5.00 
per tree- market value. With more and more artificial 
trees being used each year, their future is uncertain. 

4 . Benchmark Projective s 

Future demand for cordwood, Juniper posts and Christmas 
trees is uncertain, but probably will not exceed present 
demands through 1980. There may be an increased demand 
for desert flora to be used in landscaping homesites 
locally, but from an economic standpoint, its impact on the 
economy will be negligible. 



•f 



90 



S3 



♦. 



F. Summary 

The Arizona Strip District Statistical Region is located north 
of the Colorado River in northwestern Arizona. The region is 
rich in natural resources. Economically the region has developed 
strong economic ties with Kane and Washington Counties, Utah, 
channelizing most business activities through these areas. For 
the purpose of this analysis these two counties are designated 
community impact areas to measure the economic impact of BLM 
resources in the local economy. Approximately 937, oi the land 
in the District Statistical Region is under Federal ownership, 
a little over 4% in State land and about 3% private. 

Population : The District Statistical Region is very sparsely 
populated making up only about 0.1% of the states population. 
The present population is only 1800, an BIZ increase in popu- 
lation is projected through 1980 bringing the population to 
3250 people. 

Kane County's population declined over 13% over the last decade, 
while Washington County grew 33% in population over the same 
period. Without industrial development, Kane County may realize 
another 5% decrease in population over the next 10 year period. 
Washington County is expected to grow at least 10% over the 
next decade, however with the present level of business activity 
it may be greater. 

Income : In 19ij8, the total personal income in Washington 

County waf> more than five I i.mos tin personal income o! Kane County 



91 



I 



In 1965, in Kane County, over 36% of all households had an in- 
come of less than $5,000, 407 had an income between $5,000 and 
$7,999 and 24% had an income over $8,000. In Washington County, 
over 50% of households had an income of less than $5,000, 28% 
had an income between $5,000 and $7,999 and 21% had over $8,000 
income. 

In Kane County, over 22%, of households could be classified 
under the poverty level. In Washington County, this figure 

runs over 30%. In terms of receiving public assistance, the 
numbers are much lower due to the high level of self-sufficiency 
of these people, private assistance and intensive casework by 
welfare workers. 

Employment ; Since 1950, Kane County has witnessed a dramatic 
decline in persons employed in agriculture. Since 1960, this 
extended to the construction industry due largely to the com- 
pletion of the Glen Canyon Project. These declines have mostly 
been offset by increase economic activity in the wholesale-re- 
tail trades, service and manufacturing industries. 



Lumber is the largest single service of employment in Kane 
County. In 1970, Kaibab Lumber Company employed close to 140 
residents representing nearly one out of eight employed in 
the labor force. Since 1952, despite a widely fluctuating 
labor market, the work force has averaged close- to 1,000 
workers, excluding the Glen Canyon years. Due to Llie immobility 
of this force, unemployment has been high compared to the State. 

92 



t 



In 1969, it was 13.7% compared to the state's average of 5%. 

The economy of Washington County is based primarily on agri- 
culture, although its importance has steadily declined over 
the years. In its place employment in manufacturing, the trade 
and service industries has increased sharply. In St. George, 
between April of 1965 and April of 1968, non- agricultural pay- 
rolls increased by almost 700 people. Indications point that 
this pace will increase at an even more accelerated rate in the 

I 111 Ulc. 

Lumber production is the largest single source of employment 
in the District Statistical Region, largely represented by 
Kaibab Lumber Company that employes about 265 people. 

Industries : Livestock is the largest single contributor to 
farm income in the two community impact area. Most livestock 
operations arc of a cow-calf type and are largely supported by 
their operators through non-agricultural jobs. In fact, the 
bulk of their family incomes come from these jobs, for without 
them most of these livestock operations would not exist. In 
the District Statistical Region it includes over 807, of operators 
who come under this sub-marginal category. 



Mineral production in the two community impact areas is largely 
limited to sand and gravel production. Other minerals are known 
to exist in the area but their development must wait until such 
time that technological and market conditions can make it eco- 
nomically feasible to extract them. Kane County has vast coal 



< 



<s 



reserves in Lhe Kai parowits fields Lhal are being studied for 
possible extraction to drive large steam generators near Lake 
Powell. If the Kaiparowits coal project goes, it will bring 
enormous prosperity to Kane County and the surrounding country- 
side. It is the one industry that offers Kane County long term 
prosperity and stable employment. 



V 



Kane and Washington Counties lie within America's Golden Circle 
of scenic and recreation areas that draw thousands of visitors 
each year. These visitors provide substantial economic benefits 
to these I wo count ios in I ou i i.'^t revenue , I 1 1 , 1 1 has caused a 
service oriented complex to develop. Although this business 
is very attractive, it is very seasonal, particularly in Kane 
County, and does not provide a steady level of employment to the 
region. In Washington County, much of the tourist business 
centers around St. George and vicinity that will have to respond 
to the Interstate 15 Highway Bypass if business activity is to 
continue its growth over the next decade. 



Although the District Statistical Region rests almost entirely 
within the circle of scenic and recreation, it serves primarily 
as a passage way to the more well publicized scenic and historic 
areas, except for deer hunting where hundreds enjoy the pristine 
condition of this area each year. It will develop only to the 
extent that community impact area develops and access roads are 
constructed throughout the region. 



i 



94 



( 



( 



t 



A The economy of Kane County has historically been very dependent 

on the lumber industry, despite the fact that most timber is 
cut in Garfield and Coconino Counties. Forestry in Washington 
County is insignificant with forestry product production limited 
to cedar post cutting and Christmas trees. In addition Joshua 
trees and barrel cactii are harvested to a limited extent each 
year. 

Timber products harvested on National Forest lands and milled 
in Fredonia provide the largest single source of revenue to the 
District Statistical Region. Between 49 and 50'_ million board 
feet are cut each year generating over three million dollars 
in gross revenue. 

l|Sp Public Land Resources : Following is an outline of present and 

projected production of BLM resources and the economic value 
of these to the BLM, initial users and local community. 

Resource Production or Consumption : 

Present Consumption 

Livestock Forage (1970) 212,043 AUMs 

Deer Hunter Days (Av., 1967-68) 10,032 

General Recreation Visitor Days 6,000 
(non-hunting) 1969 

Sand and Gravel (1968) 168,186 cu. yds. 

Surface Water (Reserved) 

Ground Water (Reserved) 

Juniper Posts (1970) 2,225 

f 

95 



* 



Projected Demand - 1980 

Livestock Forage 

Deer Hunter Days 

General Recreation Visitor Days 
(non-hunting) 

Sand and Gravel 

Juniper Posts 

D ependence of 1'LM Permit I res on I'l . M Fo r age : 

Total number of Section 3 permittees 

Dependent on BLM for 15% or less of 
their livestock feed 

Dependent on BLM for 16-50% of 
their livestock feed 

Dependent on BLM for 51% or more of 
their livestock feed 

Monetary Value to Initial Users : 

Livestock Forage 

Deer Hunting 

General Recreation (non -hunt ing) 

Sand and Gravel 

Juniper Posts 

Surface Water 

Ground Water 



243,850 AUMs 
20,065 
11,100 

(Reserved) 
(Reserved) 

168 

14% 
40% 
46% 

$742,151 

50,160 

6,000 

20 

260 

(Reserved) 

(Reserved) 



T 



m 



96 



! 



i 



Dependence of Initial Users on BLM Resources 

Livestock Forage 36% 

Deer Hunting 347. 

General Recreation (non-hunting) 0.5% 

Sand and Gravel 73.1% 

Juniper Posts 90.4% 

Surface Water (Reserved) 

Ground Water (Reserved) 

Monetary Value I o Local Communities : 

Livestock Forage $310,962 

Deer Hunting 182,995 

General Recreation (non-hunting) 71,770 
(Value of other resources unknown) 

Dependence of Local Communities on BLM Resources : 



Livestock Forage 
Deer Hunting 



1.7% 
approximately 0.7% 



\:i 



97 



'■<&/' G. Conclusion 

This analysis has explored the economy of two Utah counties, 
designated as Community Impact Areas, that have provided an 
economic medium for most business transactions occuring in the 
Arizona Strip District Statistical Region. These two counties, 
Kane and Washington Counties, Utah, are both basically rural 
in character and have developed around the rich resources of 
the region. Neither county possesses the buying power index 
of a more industrial ized community. Both counties arc basically 
closed-communities catering primarily to the faithful of Un- 
church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. This poses a 
problem to future development perhaps focusing most attention 
to export oriented industrial growth of a service nature, 
particularly if the Kaiparowits Coal Project does not materialize, 



i 



The dependency of the local community on BLM resources is very 
small under present market conditions and barring any tech- 
nological or economic changes in mining, it will probably remain 
very small in the future. Perhaps the greatest value of BLM 
based resources as a total is in the nature of their geographical 
location which cannot be explained in traditional economic terms. 
The partial circumnavigation of this region by the Colorado River 
and the lack of good access roads from the north have basically 
isolated the region from the rest of the world. It has caused 
the region to remain pristine, unspoiled, unpolluted, offering 
clean air and open spaces of a most satisfying nature and ex- 
^■' perience even to the most novice traveler. It is an area that 

defies economic explanation in this day of environmental concern. 

98 



Q 

W 
H 
CJ 

w 
o 

OS 

tX 

Q 

<C 

H 

w 

CO 

ex 



CO 

o 
w 

Q 

< 

O 

H-1 

H 
& 

3J 
CO 

22 

o 
u 

o 

I— I 
H 
CJ 

Q 

O 

oS 

PM 
W 

u 

oS 

tD 
O 
CO 



O 

>< 

oS 



CO 

H 
CJ 
M 
Pi 
H 
CO 



cn 

-o 

r-l 

•--a > — 1 ' — ^ ca 

QJ 00 >-< 

x > vo 

C CO CTN U 

CO Vj — 1 -H 

CO O -' -O 

3 

CJ 





c 











r- 1 


■H 


* — < 


<0 


4 J 


o> 


5.1 


tO 


mO 


QJ 


QJ 


O 


c 


u 


1— 1 


0) 


CJ 


-— - 





qj 
pi 





r'. 

CO 
Q 

5-i 
O 



> 





00 


CO 




O 


> 




GO 1 


3 




c r» 


Q 


S-j 


•H \D 




QJ 


4-t C"J> 


S-t 


QJ 


3 *-* 


QJ 


Q 


3 


4-> 




I Oil 


C 




3 


3 




< 


X 



^ 


O 




O 


r-- 




O 


c^ 


'—> 


■U 


■ — 1 


cn 


CO 




2 


0) 


-a 


3J 


> 


aj 


< 


■H 


QJ 


"-— ' 


J 


Cn 









o>| 








r*~> 








cn 








4-J 


^ 


T3 


(A 


CO 


-j 


3 


4-1 


^ O 


CQ 


CO 


O 


O Cu 




1 — 1 


3 


r- 




-a 


X) 


<?* 5-i 







O 


.— 1 0) 


—il 





S-4 


w £X 


CO 


S 


rX 


•H 


4-J 






c 









3 


H 



u - 



CO 



10 


10 


CN 


CN 


Cj> 


o^ 



LO 



vO 



00 



00 



o 

o 
o 



CM 

m 



o 



o 
m 



CN 



m 






O 


vD 


\D 


CN 


CN 



vO 



00 



00 





















c 


c 


in 


CO 


CN 


CN 



o 
o 
o 



vjO 


vD 


1- 


r-- 


<t 


<r 


#\ 


#> 


O 





O 





CN 


CN 



CN 

co 

O 



CJ> 
CN 



CO 


CO 


CN 


<f 


<r 


1 — 1 








m 


** 


«-. 


«N 


CN 


CN 





1 — 1 


t— 1 


CO 


CN 


CN 


1 



3 


00 


2 


Q> 





r^ 


c 




-* 


00 


3 


<t 


3J 


CN 





C 




C 


O 




O 


• i-i 




■r-l 


4-J 




4-J 


a 


•••«, 


u 


E 


CN| 


3 


3 


CO 


X 


in 


-a 


O 


3 


QJ 


S-i 


O 


OJ 


rX 


CJ 


2 



^U 



c 
c 



XI 



o 
c 
r* 

c 
r3 



o 
o 
o 

00 



' -L 



m 

o 



vO| 



m 

C 

o 

CN 



vO| 



o 



m 



<r| 



o 
m 

00 

CO 

<f 

CN 



<M 



00 



00 
CN 



c 









•H 




4-J 




ex 




e 




3 


Ul 


en 


-a 


C 


<u 





QJ 


U 


2 



CQ TD 
QJ 

iJ 4_> 

O CJ 

M-l Q) 

'1 — 1 

-a o 
co a. 

E 

QJ T3 
XI 0J 



3 S-i 

—1 O 

o ex 

o 

S ex 

ca Qj 

OJ CO 

QJ 



c 

o 

XI 

0J 



3 
XI 

o 







QJ 


C 


rH 






X 




4-J 


CJ 


■H 


4-J 






QJ 




CO 


X 










QJ 




rC 


QJ 


3 


QJ 






U-l 




4-J 




g 


CJ 












. — 1 


O 


3 






X 




CO 


■ — 1 


-3 


X 






3 




OJ 


•r-l 


cn 


O 






CO 




4-1 


3 




S-i 










CO 




3 


a 






rJ 




CJ 


C 


O 








QJ 




•H 


O 


•r-l 









> 




X 


■rH 


4-J 


4J 






O 




c 


4-1 


a 








CJ 




•H 


CJ 


£ 


QJ 












3 


3 


5-i 






5-1 




^^ 


X 


cn 


QJ 






QJ 




+ 


O 


3 


3 






QJ 




~— ' 


a 


O 
U 


~Z. 






X 




< 






-J 






QJ 






QJ 


X 


CQ 






r3 









QJ 








4-J 




• 


5-. 


4-1 


QJ 










> . 


3 


CJ 


J3 






<4-4 




• — * 


O 


0) 


4-J 






O 




a. 


in 


•' — 1 












a 


QJ 


r j 


'4-( 






1, " 




3 


^1 


5-i 


■r-l 






-t 




'/) 


-j 


D-i 


O 






co 




'Si 


J 




00 






X 




en 


03 


• 


C!> 






QJ 




QJ 




O 


. — 1 






4-1 




CJ 


^J 


CO 








CO 




x: 


CO 


a> 


c 






E 




0J 


.3 

4_l 


r -< 


■r-l 






•r-l 

4-1 




en 




3 


X 






cn 




QJ 


cn 


■rH 


<v 






QJ 




4-J 


QJ 




CJ 










CO 


4-J 


X 


3 






3 




CJ 


CO 


QJ 


X 






CO 




•r-t 


CJ 


4-1 


O 










X 


■rH 


CJ 


5-1 






. n 




c 


X 


QJ 


a 






3 




■r-1 


c 


a 








O 






■H 


X 


QJ 






•r-l 




1 


,-> 


QJ 


JO 






60 

QJ 




^^ 


1 


X 

3 




4-J 






06 




CO 




CO 








1 — 1 




3 


CO 


s 


QJ 






CO 




c 




QJ 


> 




• 


U 




•r-l 


. *s 


X 


CO 




QJ 


■r-i 




g 


c 




rC 




cn 


4-1 









. — 1 






CO 


cn 




X 


•H 


CO 


X 




QJ 


•H 




c 


4_) 


4-J 


1 — 1 




S-i 


4-J 




CO 





O 


3 




CJ 


CO 






3 


4-J 


O 




C 


4-1 




«■- 


X 




3 




•H 


CO 




X 





QJ 












c 


5-i 


X. 


4-J 




6-5 


4-J 




CO 


fX 


\-i 


CO 




m 


CJ 




e 






rC 




r-l 


•r-l 




QJ 


X 


cn 


4-J 






u 




X 


QJ 


■H 






cn 


4-1 






4-1 




cn 




QJ 


cn 




C/l 


CJ 


c 


QJ 




X 


•r-l 




en 


QJ 





CJ 




3 


Q 




QJ 


a 


■H 


r-l 




r— 1 






O 


X 


4J 


3 




a 


4-J, 




X 


QJ 


a 







c 


O 




QJ 




E 


cn 




•H 








X 


3 


QJ 






E-S 




cn 


QJ 


cn 


5-4 




c 


r— 1 




QJ 


QJ 


3 









m 




u 


CJ 


O 


M-l 




•H 






CO 


X 


CJ 


O 




4-1 


ex 




CJ 


QJ 








O 


3 


• 


•H 




. — 1 


>> 


• 


QJ 




r- 


X) 


. — 1 


CO 


4-J 


O 


•■—i 


cn 


vjO 


c 


. — 1 


4-J 


•H 


r~- 


O 


QJ 


■ 


■r-l 


■r-l 


O 


4-1 


o> 


J-J 


M 


CO 




3 


4-J 


C 


r-l 


a 


CO 


MO 


'"> 






CO 






£ . 


O^ 


+ 


cn 


X 


3 


c 


r* 


cn 


• — 1 


-^ 


QJ 


QJ 


cr 


•r-l 


S-i 


X X 






CJ 


4-J 






CO 


3 3 


4-J 


C/l 


5-i X 


u 


OJ 


X 


E 


co co 


</> 


3 


3 C 


QJ 


rC 


•r-l 


r3 


. 1 r— 1 


3 


. — 1 


O CO 


•1 — 1 


4-J 


X 


u 




at) 


a 


w £ 


O 






C 


"Z. 2 


3 




QJ QJ 


5-i 


cn 


4-J 


QJ 


-! rJ 


<C 


<ij 


5-i X 


Pu 


•r-l 


■r-l 


CQ 


PQ CO 



CN| 



CO| 



<N m| 



99 



: ; ^> 



Illustration No. 4 Footnotes (Cont'd. ) 



Wf 



i 



- Benchmark projections include 100% increase. 

— This figure is high due to Utah's portion of Glen Canyon Natural Resource 
Area projected visits are shown, as is the total Grand Canyon. 

8 / 

— Unknown due to State Selections. 

- Free use = 3800 Total, 3700 BLM, remaining sales. 



100 



c 
to 

u 
o> 
Pu 

cd 
co 

5-i 
O 



u 

3 

x 
o 
}-< 

Cu 

m 

o 

0) 

i — i 
CO 
> 

X 

<D 
4-i 
CO 

e 



CO 



CJ 




3 




X 




O 




S-i 




P-l 




X 




C 


*"* 


CO 


en 


i — i 


4-1 


T3 


03 


O 


O 


O 


Pm 



OJ 




> 




CO 




u 




o 




X 


. 


C 


w 


CO 


X 




JH 


X 


• 


c 


3 


td 


U 


CO 


v ~' 


c 




o 




■H 




4_) 




CO 




<u 


/— " 


S-I 


0) 


CJ 


r*\ 


cd 


CO 


OS 


Q 


. — l 


S-i 


CO 


o 


U 


4-J 


O 


•H 


c 


CD 


CD 


■H 


o 


> 



o o 



o o 

t/> CO- 



CO o 



o o 



C ro 

O CM 

r-l .£3 



00^ 






C >, 






•H CO 






u Q 






C 






3 U 






X CD 






i-> 


o 


o o> 


u c 




O —i 


CD 3 




• 


01 JE 




LO On 


Q -^ 


t/y 




^ 






o s: 






O 3 






4-1 < 






CO 


<r 


o <r 


0) TD 


<r 


m ^ 


> <D 


• 


• 


•*-4 CD 


o 


en —i 


_l U* 


</> 


</> </> 







col >, 








en g 




CNI| 


<-» o 







CO 


'■- 1 c 


H 




!-i 


B o 






CD 


C CJ 


(D 




to 


C w 


3 




3-> 


o 


r— 1 






CJ r-( 


CO 




.—1 


W" CO 


> 




CO 


c 




■v. 


•H 


— i o 


> 


± 


u 


CO -H 


5-4 


•H 


O 4-) 


CO 


_i 


c 


O CO 


4-) 


CQ 


1— 1 


J Z 


CD 








C 








o 


• 


• 


• 



ro 



ro — i <f 



m io m 



in m m 



in m in 



cn en -t 







r«N 












. 1 












— 












c 












CD 












O 












~~^ 












CO 












a 








■V. 




3 








m| 




•• O 








o 




CO 5-i 








H 




CD O 
■H 








0) 




4-J 4-J 








3 


CO 


•H CO 








.— i 


S-i 


C CD 








CO 


CD 


3 J-i 








> 


co 

3 


E CD 

E 4-> 








>■ 




o c 








i_i 


. — i 


U M 








CO 


CO 




4-1 


•H 


— 1 (-1 


CD 


4-1 


CO O <C CO O Q 


C 


■H 


a >»-i 


O 


C 


O CO 


S 


r-l 


J 2 


c 






G 




• • 


7T. 


r-l 


^J en 













X) 












CD 


CO 










XI 


0) 










•H 


3 










> 


i — i 










•H 


CO 










X 


> 


u 

•r-l 








• 




i — 1 








en 


• 


X 








en 


^ 


3 








</> 


o 

. — 1 


a 








U-4 


1 


X 








o 


"- 1 


4-1 
•H 








a 


X 


3 








■H 


c 










J-i 


CO 


S-i 








4-1 


^ 


CO 

•r-l 








S-i 


[> 


r— 1 








CD 


o 


•H 








ex 


1 — 1 

E 


E 
CO 








c 


3 


M-l 








o 


•r-l 










CO 


X 


rA 








S-i 


CD 


r-l 








CD 


• E 


CD 








a 


CO 1 

s-i cxi 


4-1 

CO 








• S-t 


o 


E 








CO 01 


■u E 


•H 








c a 


•H 3 


4-1 








o 


CO -H 


c 








•r-4 CO 


■H X 


•rH 








4-1 CD 


> 0) 










co S-i 


E 


CO 








4-J 3 


S-i 1 


c 








3 4J 


oi ro 











Q. ■■H 


•H 


03 








E X 


-^ E 


S-4 








O C 


co 3 


0) 








CJ QJ 


1 -H 


a 








a 


C X 










>-• X 


O CD 


>> 








O CD 


C £ 


X 








<4-l 1 


i 










CD 


>^<J- 


X 








<C JJ 


X 


CD 








CO 


X 


C 








X 4-J 


X 00 


oo 








•H CO 


CO -H 


•H 








X i 


4-> X 


co 








C M-l 


33 1 


CO 








0) O 
ft ' 


m 
c 


CO 








5" 4-1 


•r-l CD 


CD 








^ 3 


•—1 


X 








0) o 


4-j a 






• 




0) 


C E 


X 




CD 




CT) CD 


CD CO 


. — 1 




3 




i oc 


a x 


3 




1 — I 




CD CO 


CO 0) 


O 




CO 




S 5-i 




X 




> 




O CD 
CJ > 


to to 


CO 




4-J 




C CO 


CO X 


X 




CD 




•H 


X 4-1 


c 




£i 




C 




CO 




rJ 




X 


M-l C 






CO 




c 


O -H 


CD 




E 




CO X 




> 








o 


S-i x 


•H 




CD 




CO CO 


CD CD 


4-1 




-3 




S-. CO 


X CO 


CO 




4-) 




CD XI 


E 3 


oo 






• 


X 


3 


CD 




>, 


CD 


E CD 


C to 


C 




1 — 1 


3 


3 S-i 


•H 






■H 


. — i 


C 3 


CD 


S-4 




S-i 


CO 


00 


00 E 


o 




CO 


> 


.4* -H 


CO CD 




• 


03 




CJ 14-4 


S-I 4J 


CD 


03 


CO 


4-J 


o 


QJ CO 


> 


C 


CD 


CD 


4-1 C 


> >> 


•r-l 


o 


CJ 


~C 


CO o 


cO to 


4-1 


•H 


CD 


S-i 


CD -H 




•H 


c 


C 


CO 


> 4-1 


O 00 


CO 


■r-l 




E 


•r-l CO 


X c 


o 


cx 


4J 




— * CD 


H -H 


Q. 


o 


o 


o 


S-i 


1 4-1 






c 


r^ 


<r cj 


i co 


CD 


X 




C3> 


^D 0) 


^ S-i 


X 


c 


CD 


. — i 


a- oi 


CO 




CO 


CD 




#— t 


>% 4-1 


S-i 




U-, 


XI 


X 


cO C 


CD 


03 




CD 


C CO 


X -H 


X 


CD 


00 


4-1 


O 4J 


o 


4J 


X 


c 


CO 


3j 


CO Cl 


■i-l 


3 


•r-l 


E 


X 


• 


CD 


4-1 


N 


■H 


cd in 


m o 




•H 


CO 


4-1 


CO ^D 


. — i 


C 


4-1 


S-I 


to 


CO CJ> 


>-. 


CO 


4-1 


o 


w 


CQ _ 1 


x <c 


CJ 


CO 


^ 


"»v 


"~«. ■»» 


\ 






^ 


CN 


m|<r 


m 







101 






. 



o 

Q 
3 

en 



cj 
3 

x 

O 
M 
CU 

4-4 


<u 

. — * 
3 

> 

-a 

aj 

4-J 

CO 

E 



10 

w 



CO 
u 

3 

-a x) 

o o 

o u 

3: 04 



•0 



-a 


c 


c 


cu 


3 


•H 


<u 


•H 


a 


cj 


>> 


3 



0) 



-a > 

CO J-i 
co o 





o 




•H 


r— ( 


4-1 


CO 


CO 


J-i 


CU 


(I) 


u 


3 


o 


CD 


CD 


O 


a: 





w 




c 




■H 


S-i 


(J 


CD 


C 


Q) 


3 


O 


X 


^ 




3 




o 




4-J 




co 




CD 


■a 


> 


CD 


•H 


ID 


J 


tu 



H oi 



o 
H 

CD 
3 

CO 
> 

>\ 
U 
CO 

4-J 
CD 
C 

o 

2 



o 
o o c 

^O ^Q ^ 
CM CNJ C 

</> </> ;zj 





c 


o 


o ■»* 


o 


o 


• 


• c 


o 


o ^ 


CN 


CN C 


<J> 


CO- 33 



6% 

o r- 

o I- 

^ i— i 
co- r- 





m| 




o m 




vo on 




-H QN 


o 


^ 




O CN 




m oo 




co- i— < 




co- 




\ 




CNJ 


ON 


—1 CN 


ON 


m vo 


CN 


f — 1 QN 


#> 


r\ «% 


m 


CN O 


On 


<r — < 




r~ m 


CO- CO- CO- 



1L 



CQ 



CD 


o 


w 


c 


1j 


o 




CJ 


—4 


w 


CO 




■H 


. — 1 


4J 


CO 


•H 


o 


C 


o 



cn cn 









XI 






















-a 


c 










• 












CD 


CO 










3 












4-J 








CO 




3 












CO 


co 






J-I 


3 


O 












l-i 


X 






3 


X 


•H 










4-) 


CD 


o 




4-J 


. — i 


4-» 


4-1 


CO 








1— 1 


C 


o 




r— 1 


—i 




3 


S-i 


3 








CD 


60 






O 


CO 


4-1 


3 


E 






• 


60 








X) 


4-> 


3 


r— i 


o 






CD 




>-. 




• 




O 


CL 


. — I 


3 






60 


CO 


3 




to 


X 


3 


E 


o 


c 






cfl 


J-i 


X 




J-J 


C 


i— I 


O 


X 


•H 






S_i 


CO 




• 


CD 


3 


M-l 


3 










O 


. — i 


c 


X 


j_) 




3 




3 


CN 






M-l 


, — i 


J-I 


CD 


C 


B 


S-i 


S-i 


X 


ON 








o 


3 


4-1 


3 




O 


4-1 


• 






" 


X 


4-1 


CO 


J3 


3 


4-1 


4-1 




i — i 






hJ 






CD 




4-J 


•H 




X 








CQ 


o 


C 


J-4 


. — i 


3 




CQ 


c 


< 








4-1 


•H 


CJ 


3 


3 


~ 




3 








c 








CJ 


H 


4-1 


X 




• 






o 


c 


O 


CO 


o 




u 


•H 


co 


CO 








o 


X 


■r-l 


—1 


O 


3 


X 


4-1 


4-J 






X! 


•H 


3 




1 


4-J 


U-l 


3 


r. 


C 






CD 


4-J 




4J 


c 




4-1 


3 


3 


3 






CO 


•r-l 


•• 


CJ 


o 


10 


3 


a x 


X 






•H 


X 


• 


CD 


c 


3 




a, 


3 


3 






CO 


T3 


CO 


'44 




CJ 


C 


<c 


J-I 


J-i 






J-4 


CO 


J-I 


IW 


o 


•H 


1— 1 




3 


3 










O 


CD 


4-J 


> 




3 


E 


E 






_*i 


C 


4-J 






J-I 




3 










O 


•r-l 


CO 


J-J 


CO 


3 


• 


C/3 


>N 


3 






o 




J-I 


CD 


CD 


co 


CO 




X 


3 






4-1 


CO 


CD 


•H 


CJ 




4-1 






3 




• 


CO 


X 


a. 


. — i 


•H 


^ 


3 


• 


3 


X 




""• - 


CD 


C 


o 


a 


> 




3 


^ 


3 


4-J 




m 


> 


CO 




•H 


!-i 


to 


X 


3 


3 








■H 


c — i 


K/ : 


4-J 


CD 


3 


u 


3 


•H 


o 


• 


c 


. — i 




u 


I — 1 


to 


i — i 


J-I 


O 


> 


4-J 


cG 


o 




"Z. 


o 


3 




3 


3 


2 


S-i 






■H 


4-1 


X! 


4-J 


E 


X 


co 


E 




3 


3 


X 


4-J 


o 


CQ 


CO 




c 






CO 


3 


3 


■H 


CO 






CD 


co 


3 


H-J, 


3 


■r-l 




3 


X 


i-l 


CD 





x 






Q 


co 


X 


X 


•i-l 


c 


4-1 


. — I 


4J 


•H 


CD 


CO 




3 


4-1 


C 


> 


3 


CO 


CO 




i — 1 


u 


X 


3 


X 




3 


S-i 


a 


3 


CO 


CD 




c 


O 


• — i 


4-J 


>. 




3 


a, 


— i 




— i 


o 


CD 





3 




X 


CJ) 


to 


< 


•— i 


>, 


X 


4J 


J3 


60 


CO 


O 




3 






H 


X 


CO 










4-1 


X 


•r-l 


^ 


X 


— 




xj 


CO 


i 


14-1 


3 




3 


60 




3 


CD 


CO 


3 


4-J 


CD 





-3 


3 


4-1 


X 


to 


3 


3 


CD 


X) 


c 


E 




4-1 


U 


3 


o 


X 




• — t 


J-i 


•r-l 


CO 


O 


CD 




•H 


3 


1 — 1 


o 


C 


CO 


CO 


J-I 


-3 


CJ 


. — 1 


>i 


> 


J-j 




o 


O 


> 




4-J 


CJ 


c 


CO 


X 


S-i 


a 


4-4 


60 


•r-l 




• — i 


4-J 


J-i 


•1-1 


CO 




3 









4-1 


4-J 


CO 


CO 


CD 






CO 


co 


CO 




4-4 


CJ 


•i-l 


CJ 




P 


co 


3 


4-J 




S-i 


3 


o 


3 


C 


o 


J-l 




•i-i 


-3 


3 


U3 


3 


. — i 




CO 


3J 


.—1 


o 


!>•> 


J3 


4-J 


3 




i— i 


3 


3 








4-J 


X 


4-J 




J3 


CO 


. — « 


CO 


. — i 


'""•* 


CD 


c 


CJ 






^ 


3 


X 


O 




3 


60 


/- 


•H 


CD 


CO 


'4-4 


-Q 


J-i 


o 


X 


3 


CO 


c 


-j 




CO 


CD 


o 




3 


o 




X 




■H 




-a 




O 




X 


E 


60 


60 


4-1 


3 


4-1 


CO 


CD 


-* 


■H 


CD 


CD 






3 




X 


3 


cu 


4-J 


CJ 


> 


E 


4-J 


;>> 


X 


■--i 


X 


4-1 


3 


E 


CO 


O 


J-j 


O 


3 


X 


. — 1 


4-1 


60 




33 


•H 


CD 


4-J 


CD 


co 


CD 




o 


. — 1 


3 


X 


— •• 


4J 


rJ 


CO 


to 




J-j 


X 


co 


3 


o 


60 


3 




CJ 


CD 




-3 


CJ 


3 




■f) 


J-I 


3 


O 


-~ " 




> 




4-) 




3 




3 


X 


O 


•H 


<t 


CD 


■H 


X 


■i-l 


3 


J-i 


o 


S-i 


4-1 


J-i 


4J 




5= 


~h 


c 


3 


E 


3 


X 






X 


3 


c 


o 




CO 




o 


3 


3 


3 


X 


4-J 


3 


o 


CJ 


s 




CO 


CJ 






X 


3 




J-i 


•H 


3 


o 


CO 


4-1 


3 


3 


co 


4-1 


3 


co 


3 


4-1 


•H 


J-I 


CD 


3 


■H 


E 


4-1 




S-i 


4J 


3 


CO 




4-1 


r— 1 


CD 




O 


3 


X 


3 


3 


OS 


^j 


i — i 




3 


X 


. — l 


CJ 


3 


3 


3 


3 




4-1 


CO 


CD 


co 


•I-l 


3 


c 


X 


3 




X 


3 


co 


c 


E 




co 


3 


■H 


•H 




3 


•H 


3 


3 








X. 


CD 


O 




Cfl 


4-J 


2 


to 


cn 


. — i 


co 


CJ 


00 


J-i 


CO 


■—1 


3 


3 


O 


3 




i—4 


S-j 


c 


3 




J-I 


3 


S-i 


3 


o 


J-i 




1— 1 


CD 


•H 


o 


J-i 


3 


c 




a 


3 




• 


•— ' 


a, 




S-i 


CD 


a 





S-i 


co 


•H 


J-i 


X 


P--, 




. — 1 


r- 


X 




co 


3 






3 


3 


4-> 


co 


CO 


4-J 


4J 


to 


J-I 


X 


CO 


o 


X 


3 


■H 


CD 


C 




o 


3 


3 


4-1 


S-i 


OO 


4-J 


3 


4-J 


4-1 





CD 




4-J 


a 


o 


3 


m 


o 




c 


3 


CO 


E 


E 


3 






r—l 


r. 




to 


CO 


4-) 


J-i 


o 





4-J 


3 


!>> 


r— 1 


r~- 


>, 


•r-l 


3 


■r-l 


CD 


CJ 


J-I 


•H 


X 


X 


o 


ro 


X 




or 


4-J 


a 


C 


IM 


4-J 


4-J 




X 


co 




J-I 




CO 




-rH 




CO 




X 






XI 


3 


CD 


c 


CO 




co 


3 


CO 


3 


, — 1 


C 


3 


■r-l 


u 


o 


CD 


co 


CD 


O 


3 


4-1 


3 


o 


4J 


. — i 


J-I 


CJ 


X) 


•H 


CJ 


O 


X 


3 


3 




3 


a 


3 




3 


J3 


•H 




3 


S-i 


•H 


X 


J-i 


•i-i 


o 


CO 


—i 


4-J 


> 


co 


. — i 


3 


60 


3 


3 


4-J 


CO 


•r-l 


CJ 




J-4 


■H 


a 


3 


•H 


to 


C 


•— 1 


CD 


x: 


c 


>-i 


CD 


J3 


3 


3 


S-I 


3 


3 


3 


Di 


H 


■H 


X 


Cfl 


H 


■H 


60 


o 


X 


60 


E 



l|CN| 



M| 



<M 



102 



CO 




w 




u 




CH 




:=> 




o 




CO 




UJ 




oi 




S 




J 




Uj 




S 




O 




CO 




UJ 




1— 1 


**■•"% 


H 


CD 


i— i 


e 


-'. 


o 


■ ! 

C 1 


u 

c 




(—1 


o 




u 


<+-( 




o 


J 




< 


4-J 


u 


c 


o 


cu 


J 


u 




!~< 


Q 


CD 


>'. 


Cm 


< 


'— ' 


CO 


> 


oi 


CJ 


UJ 


c 


CO 


<D 


UJ 


xj 




c 


►J 


<u 


< 


a 


1— 1 


0) 


H 


a 


i— 1 




2 


X) 


i—i 


a) 


\ 


4-1 


co 


CO 


tj 


e 


M 


•H 


OtJ 


4-J 


H 


CO 


CO 


W 


p 




Q 




Z 




H 




U. 




O 




UJ 




U 




a 




UJ 




a 




z 




U) 




PXl 




UJ 




Q 





CJ 

x x 



3 cm 



-a 

CD 

X) 
C co 
co !-< 

CO O 





o 




•H 


— 1 


4-J 


to 


CO 


u 


c 


CD 


u 


c 


o 


QJ 


CD 



O eC 





CH 




C 




'H 


u 


_J 


CD 


C 


QJ 


3 


Q 


33 


X. 




CJ 




o 




4-J 




en 




(1) 


X) 


*> 


ii 


■H 


0) 


J 


u^ 



co 

QJ 
r-l 

0) 



<r| 



o 



<M 



e-s 



m 



6 -' 



CO 



6-S 



C 
3 

O 

c 

c 



ro 



m 

o 





"U 




r- 


6-S 


• 


<t 


o 


C> 





CN| 

E- 
r- 



4-J 






CJJ 


•H 


c 




to 


CO 


C 

3 

e 


4J 




0) 


• — I 


g 


C 




•H 


CO 


o 


<u 




!m 


•H 


u 


X 


CO 


4-1 


J-J 




c 


a 


CO 


•H 


_{ 


CD 


a 


3 


C 


CO 


Q- 





x 


1— 1 


U 


CD 


U 


c 




o 


Q 


o 


i— i 




J 



j3 



c 
o 

CJ 

en 

o 

4J 

o 

CD 

co 

o 

3 



CD 
CO 

CD 
rC 

4-J 


















u 








c 








•H 








_, 








fO 








4-) 








O 








4-1 








'4-1 








o 








4-J 








c 








CD 








CJ 








u 








CD 








a 








CO 








CO 








< 






en 








CD 


• 






r-l 


>\ 






3 


CJ 






60 


c 






•r-l 


CD 






rU 


X) 

c 






CD 


CD 






E 


a 






o 


CD 






cj 


X • 






c 


CD 






1— 1 


CD E 
CJ 






1 — 1 


U cj 






CO 


3 C 






c 


O -H 






o 


CO 




• 


co 


CD •— i 


• 


<T) 


U 


Oi CO 


ro 


• — i 


CD 


C 






Cm 


S o 


E 


E 




J CO 


0) 


d) 


i — i 


CQ r-l 


4J 


j_i 


CO 


CD 


M 


I— 1 


4-1 


s-> a 






o 


o 


" 


•» 


H 


C4M —* 


< 


<C 




CO 






CO 


CD 4-1 


tf 


X 


vO 


> G 


■r-l 


•r-l 


O^ 


•r-l 4-J 


X 


X) 


rH 


4-J 


c 


c 




CO 


0) 


CD 


c 


5-1 4-1 


a 


a 


o 


U 


a 


a. 




CO CD 


< 


< 


XI 


2 —i 






CD 


4-J 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CD 4-J 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CD -H 


CO 


CO 


PQ 


C/j —I 



CM | 



ro| 



<r| 



103 



■•. 



/ w 1 * i- .1 a *■ ia ■ iqa/ 2/ $ 2,065,074 

4. Value of livestock products sold in 1964— v ' ' 



APPENDIX A 
4P Monetary Value of BLM Forage to Local Communities and 

Dependence of Industry and Community on BLM Forage 

1. Total livestock feed requirements (AUM's) - 

2. Licensed grazing on BLM lands (AUM's) = 273,916 

3. Dependence of livestock industry on BLM forage ( 2 -J- 1 ) 

5. Value of all agricultural products sold in 1964" * 4,4^7,241 

6. Value of livestock products as percentage of all +o.o/ 

agricultural products (4 -i 5) 

7. Personal income in agricultural sectors in 1964- - ? 1,096,455 

8. Estimated personal income in livestock sectors, * 51U,94e 

1964 (6x7) 

9. Personal income in livestock sector attributable to 

BLM land (3x8) - $ 182,919 

: Tj 10. Income multiplier for livestock sector in Kane and 

Washington Community Impact Areas 5/ - 1.70 

11. Monetary value of BLM forage to local community (9x10) = * 310,962 

12. Total personal income in Kane and Washington Community 

Impact Areas in 1964^ $ 18,365,040 

13. Economic dependence of communities on BLM Forage = 1.7/o 

(11 -J- 12) 

14. Personal income created in livestock sector per BLM 

AUM (9 4-2) a $ °-67 

15. Personal income created in local community per BLM 

AUM (11 +2) $ 1-14 



1/ U.S. Census of Agriculture 1964. Arizona State Office Figures for District 

Statistical Region Figures. 

2/ U.S. Census of Agriculture. 

3/ Ibid. 



104 



i 



m J. Whitney Hanks, Personal Income in Utah Counties. 

5/ A derived income multiplier. This figure was determined by extrapolation 
" of livestock production data at the state and regional levels based on 
certain assumptions. It was assumed that livestock production at state 
and regional levels is basically similar to that of local areas, each 
area requiring similar inputs per dollar output. It was further assumed 
that state and regional levels are more complex, industries are more inter- 
related, and there is a higher degree of self-sufficiency causing a greater 
economic impact with initial changes in output. Hence, multipliers in these 
areas are generally larger and require a weighted adjustment to more localized 
areas. These figures were then averaged with and compared to upper Mam Stem, 
San Juan and Green River Sub- Basin multipliers due to the fact that trade 
coefficients are thought to compare closely with the two community impact 
areas then adjustments were made as required. The range livestock Income 
multiplier for these sub-basins is 1.74. The reader is cautioned that data 
derived from use of this multiplier should be used as a g eneral £Uide only 
until more specific data becomes available. 

6/ Utah Department of Employment Security - Annual Report 1969. 



105 



— 1 




CO 




CO 




CJ 




cj 




■H 




o 


c 


4-1 


^ - 


( — 1 


•H 


to 


-t 


• 




■H 


X 


c 


co 


4-1 


m 


o 


>-. 


CO 


— * 


S2 


CO 


4-1 






Q 


CO 


c 


m 






o 


o 


5-i 


J-J 


■M 




OJ 


o 


00 


5-4 


4J 


•H 


QJ 


O) 


c 


5-i 


Pi 


Xj 


3 


4-1 




E 


53 


co 




3 




•H 





4-1 




C 


cO 




o 


4-1 




■H 


•H 




qo 


XI 


4-1 


OJ 


Oj 


a 


CC 


53 


•i-i 






!-i 


1 — 1 


U-l 


4-1 


CO 


o 


en 


a 




■H 


•H 


4-) 


a 


4J 


c 




CO 


0) 


c 


•H 


o 


•H 


4-1 


5-1 




CO 


OJ 




4-1 


CM 




CO 







CN 






i X 




5-4 


C -i 




0) 


— 




4-J 


•z. 




C 


CO 




3 


>. 5-i 




53 


X a) 

4-J 




CM 


4-1 3 




o 


C 3 

oj 33 


4-) 


5-i 


ex 


•H 


0) 


to •— < 


c 


X 


CO 


3) 


e 


to cj 




3 


>, O 


4-J 


z; 


cO •— i 


c 




Q 


QJ 






E 






a) 




i 


00 


5-i 


3 


CO 


QJ 


O^N 


3 


4-) 


I2CN| 


5? 


C 


CO 




3 


>^ 5-i 




DC 


X QJ 


QJ 




4-) 


6 


<4-J 


4-1 C 


CO 


o 


3 3 


O 




QJ 53 




4-1 


a 


QJ 


c 


CO —i 


J-i 


QJ 


CO 


•H 


CJ 


co cj 


4_) 


5-< 


P^ o 


c 


QJ 


CO i— i 


w 


D-i 
cm 


Q 




O 


5jr-4| 




M 


1) CO 




0) 


4-J >> 




X 


3 CO 




B 


3 Q 




3 


53 



00 
CO 






in 
m 



00 


vD 


LO 


m 


r-~ 


<t 


^o 


CT> 


en 



cr> 


00 


-T 


CN 


U"l 


LT| 


LO 


a-v 


C7^ 


o 


a> 


O 


«. 


^ 


** 


»• 


oo 


LP) 


, — < 


CD 


en 






i— I 



o 

H 



en 

0> 



LO 



CJN 



r- 



o 

CO 



CN 

en 



o 

o 



CN 
CN 



o 



4-J 


X 




E 


CO 




00 4J 


.a 




2 -rH 


■M 


CQ 


c 


CO 


CM 


QJ ZD 


^ 


. — i 


E 






CO 


• 




CJ 


2 




5-i 


r^- 




CO 


v£> 




OJ 


O 





o 
o 



o 
o 



00 


<r 


CN 


m 


LO 


0> 


o 


o 


o 



LO 
ON 









CN 

en 



r-» en 

m cn 

o <o 



X 




CO 




X) 




•r-l 


CQ 


CO 


CN 


u. 


, — i 



cn 



oo 

■Xi 



<r 



o 



O 

o 



oo 









in 






o 


O 


CN 


. — i 


r— 1 


0> 


m 


cn 


C") 


• 


Q 


n 


#> 


CN 


„ 


~ 


n 


00 


00 
CN 


o> 


co- 


. — 1 

co- 



o 














H 














00 














^D 








CO 






r- 








X 






vO 








3 






O^ 








3 






—* 


c 






—I 






c 


o 






12. 






o 


•H 






J 






•H 


oo 






CQ 






00 


0J 












CJ 


Cd 






O 






a* 


__, 






4-1 






. — i 


cO 






X 






CO 


CJ 






QJ 


^ 




CJ 


.,_< 






4-J 


"-"tj 




•M 


4.J 


CO 




3 


'" v 




4 J 


CO 


X 


•x. 


X 


CN 




CO 


■H 


3 


m| 


•M 







•H 


4-1 


cO 




M 


• 




4-1 


CO 


. — i 


•**s 


4-1 


. — i 




CO 


4-1 




o 


4-J 


'—' 




4-J 


CO 


~z. 


o 


3 






CO 




XI 


«* 




4-1 






"4-1 


CQ 


o 


co 


CJ 




4-1 


o 




. — 1 


u 


•I-I 




CJ 




O 


co- 


QJ 


5-4 




•H 


&"? 


4-J 


• — 


4-1 


4-1 




5-i 


<r 






3 


CO 




4-1 


v~> 


QJ 


CO 


3 


■H 




CO 




. — i 


5-i 


X 


Q 




•r-l 




X 


QJ 








a 


CO 


CO 


4-1 


. — i 


3 






X! 


j_> 


3 


3 


•H 




QJ 


C 


3 


3 


CJ 


X 




x 


CO 


X 


X 


O 


4-J 




4-1 


. — i 


•H 




i — i 


•M 








!_i 


. — i 


i 


3 


• 


c 


-a 


4-1 


CO 


3 




00 


•H 


QJ 


u 


CJ 


O 


co 


3 




5-4 


CO 


o 


3 


QJ 


•H 


CO 


QJ 




—1 




5-4 


4-J 


;n 


4-J 


co 


1 


CM 


3 


3 


CO 


CO 


>-> 


3 


O 


4-1 


3 


XI 


•H 


CO 


o 




•H 


X 




c 


X 


3 


co 


X 




5-i 


•r-l 






QJ 


3 


S-i 


QJ 


E 


M 


cm 


5-1 


QJ 


QJ 


4-J 


XI 


QJ 


O 


3 


a. 


QJ 


c 


CO 


4_1 




4-1 


X 


X 


3 




C 


QJ 


•H 


QJ 




-3 


^ 


3 


5-i 


X 




X 




J 


X 


3 


3 


00 


QJ 


! 1 


ca 




4-1 


QJ 


3 


CO 


CO 




M 


■M 


a, 


•H 


3 


CJ 


c 


OJ 


X 


•a 


4-1 


X 


O 


o 


QJ 
X 


3 

QJ 


QJ 


3 

3 


i 


■ 


4-J 




a 


. — I 


X 


X 


c 


CO 


. — i 


X 


3 




CQ 


o 


4-1 


CO 


QJ 


a 


5-4 




c 


•H 


CJ 




o 


O 


CM 




XI 


o 


. — i 


■ — i 


CM 


O 


CM 


CO 


. — t 


CO 








O 


X 


1 


CJ 


. — i 


5-4 


QJ 






3 


O 


3 


QJ 


3 


5-i 


5j 


o 


. — i 


3 


■H 


~^ 


QJ 


QJ 


c 




3 


. — i 


3 


-Q 


OJ 




>> 


3 


cx 


> 


E 


X 


cm 


. — i 


3 


•H 




3 




o 


•H 




4-J 


>, 


c 


CM 




3 


QJ 


. — 1 


U 




O 


M 


X 


oo 


3 


3 


QJ 




QJ 




3 


E 


4-1 


00 


4-1 


X 


QJ 


5-i 




QJ 


CO 


c 


E 


00 


QJ 


QJ 


3 




CD 


3 


CO 


> 


E 


O 


QJ 


CJ 


C 


S-J 


< 


O 


z 


£•• 


5-i 




QJ 




CJ 




CO 


OJ 


II 


> 

CO 


II 


3 

•M 


II 


CO 


co 




CO 




CO 




3 


QJ 




QJ 




QJ 




C 


E 




E 




E 




C 


•H 




■M 




•H 




<; 


H 




H 




H 





106 



Appendix B Footnotes 

— Arizona Game Management Data Summary 1968-69 

—Statistical Region including Page, Arizona 

3/ 

— Based on estimated daily hunter expenditures in area. About 95% of 

hunters coming into area are self-contained. Based on a 5-day hunt, 
party of 2-4, they spend not more than 2 nights in a motel, 2-4 mieals, 
buy some perishable groceries, and 25 gallons of gasoline per hunter. 

4/ 

— A derived income multiplier - See Appendix A - Footnote 5 for Methodology 

Sub-basin income multiplier equals 2,00-2,03. 



107 



Bureau of Land Management 

Library 

Denver Service Center 



' 









<&>\ fc u cP